Easy solution to calm down some of the Civ Switching Controversy (at least a little bit)?

[King of Prussia]

The people that really dislike the civ switching probably wont be playing Civ 7. If they do, they will be using mods to either keep playing their civ, or mods that add other Civs that lead to a more "natural" progression. Alternatively they wait for the game and DLC to be super cheap like Civ 6 is now to get a similar experience. Of course years from now, who knows what changes they would of made to the system through patches and expansions.

For me, i get why they are doing it, but it is still my most skeptical part of the game. With that said, im sure having more civs per era(mod or dlc) would help alleviate some of its issues for me.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I'm hoping we get three ages of Maya because they deserve it and are probably the only viable case for a three-age civ in the New World.

I am afraid all this Civ Switching is going to somehow work after a few years and a ton of mods Or maybe after one good mod turning it upside down

 

[Gorbles]

I'm completely fine with how switching works as-presented, though obviously pending actual impressions of the final product. I genuinely don't think it's as controversial as it is sometimes made out to be, and from my anecdotal little corner of the Internet, sentiment on social media is trending more positive and less divisive. Your mileage may vary, but I don't think what the OP is proposing is "easy". More options are always good, but implementing options can frequently be a pain (I say, as a developer, a small appeal to authority but hopefully a sensible one hah).

 

[untitledjuan]

People like me, complain that the Civ Switches are not "historial" enough, for instance when Greece turns into the Normans or Spain turns into Mexico

The Spain>Mexico connection is perhaps the most direct connection between Civs we currently know of. Mexico was basically formed by a Spanish colony/viceroyalty (aka. kingdom) known as New Spain. Lots of Spanish settlers moved into New Spain and most Mexicans today have either partial Spanish heritage and some have predominant Spanish heritage.

Moreover, you can make a case for the Greek>Norman connection. The Greeks had lots of very important colonies in Sicily and the Normans famously ruled the Kingdom of Naples, which included Sicily. This connection is not as direct as the Spain to Mexico one, but still, a case could be made for it.

 

[Krikkit1]

The Spain>Mexico connection is perhaps the most direct connection between Civs we currently know of. Mexico was basically formed by a Spanish colony/viceroyalty (aka. kingdom) known as New Spain. Lots of Spanish settlers moved into New Spain and most Mexicans today have either partial Spanish heritage and some have predominant Spanish heritage.

Moreover, you can make a case for the Greek>Norman connection. The Greeks had lots of very important colonies in Sicily and the Normans famously ruled the Kingdom of Naples, which included Sicily. This connection is not as direct as the Spain to Mexico one, but still, a case could be made for it.

The Greek Norman connection I think works best as indirect Greek-Rome-Norman (no population connection, but cultural/religious ones)

 

[Askia Muhammad]

The people that really dislike the civ switching probably wont be playing Civ 7. If they do, they will be using mods to either keep playing their civ, or mods that add other Civs that lead to a more "natural" progression. Alternatively they wait for the game and DLC to be super cheap like Civ 6 is now to get a similar experience. Of course years from now, who knows what changes they would of made to the system through patches and expansions.

For me, i get why they are doing it, but it is still my most skeptical part of the game. With that said, im sure having more civs per era(mod or dlc) would help alleviate some of its issues for me.

I’m somewhere in the middle. I really dislike the idea of Civ switching and there are far more elegant non-immersion breaking ways to accomplish the same gameplay feature (leader succession with gameplay systems to raise your successor to fit new gameplay bonuses)

Civilization is either my favorite or second favorite franchise of all time and I’m still genuinely on the fence if I am going to purchase it.

Aside from Civ swapping the UI looks really bad and dated. I’m hoping that’s just a WIP.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I agree that they should give the player as many options as possible so that they can create whatever games they fancy. I see no reason to restrict this; sure, have a default setup, but otherwise give players the option.

 

[ColtSeavers]

The initial “shock” of Civ switching is long gone and now most discussion of it revolves around potential paths, new civs, etc.

Not sure, on what basis you are saying this? There are currently two other threads discussing this matter (Leader Switching and Preservations on Name in Civ Switching) just on the first page of this forum. Furthermore, some Youtubers (e.g. Potato Mc Whiskey) have just come out recently with some new videos, why they think, Civ Switching is allegedly "necessary". I doubt they would have done that, if nobody asked that question anymore.
Last but not least, just because not that many people are discussing this topic here anymore, doesn't mean, most of the Civ Fans are on board with this. Many of the guys, who discussed this topic in prior threads, are not participating anymore, because they just don't like how this game is set up currently. That doesn't mean, you could never win any of them back though, if you make some adjustments, or give them at least some options, to play the game somewhat differently.

Plus, you have to understand, that guys like you, who have already pre-ordered and will most certainly also going to buy the upcoming DLCs, are not the primary target group for FXS, any longer. They already got your money and will proably receive your money for the future content, anyway. However, if they "win back" some of the prior customers, who are not on board yet, that is some real additional money for them. I'm pretty sure, if the sales figures are just average after release (which I don't consider unlikely), FXS will try to come up with some changes and adjustments, to regain some of their "lost" customers.

 

[stealth_nsk]

There are a lot of different things here:

1. Complains about civ switching being ahistorical are made by people who are both history geeks and civ fanatics (if you're just history geek, the previous system of civ staying through the whole game could look even weirder to you). That's generally a minority and people who'll probably buy the game anyway.
2. Concerns about not being able to transition to any civ from any other about gameplay, not historical simulation. Those concerns are preliminary and we don't know how it would play out, so I'd not suggest anything here (the concern is what there's not many civs per age and if we limit transition, we'll also have limited number of path variants, which could potentially limit replayability - although the overall number of those paths is going to be many times higher than number of civs in any previous game)
3. Additional settings for the game are good by themselves, but each additional option multiplies the amount of testing, tweaking and balancing required for the game. It's better to have not so many settings at launch, but with all combinations solid, tested and playable.

 

[ColtSeavers]

There are a lot of different things here:
Additional settings for the game are good by themselves, but each additional option multiplies the amount of testing, tweaking and balancing required for the game. It's better to have not so many settings at launch, but with all combinations solid, tested and playable.

What much is there to test, if they allowed you the option to select what Civs the AI is going to pick for each era? They let you select the Civs of the AI in prior games, too. You can always make a mountain out of a molehill, but I this is just ridicolous.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I don't think that's true. This logic of yours doesn't really apply to you yourself, does it? You say you aren't interested in the game and you're still here posting in the Civ 7 forum multiple times every day. So I don't see any reason to think that people less interested in the game aren't just as engaged with the forum as those who are interested.

That doesn't make sense, and you know it. Just because I still post here, doesn't mean others do so, too. Anyways, happy new year. I'm out for this year!

 

[stealth_nsk]

What much is there to test, if they allowed you the option to select what Civs the AI is going to pick for each era? They let you select the Civs of the AI in prior games, too. You can always make a mountain out of a molehill, but I this is just ridicolous.

AI not just selects historical paths, it selects them if they are available. If human player or another AI already taken them, AI selects one of the civs which normally aren't part of the historical path. I assume it's even a bit more complex - historical path civs first, other unlocked civs second, locked civs third, for example. Now, if developers want to mess with this algorithm, they could do it in a number of ways - for example they let you edit the historical path civs, but this need to ensure the civ is automatically unlocked for this particular AI player. All this also requires specific UI, because you're generally edit 2 lists per civ (exploration and modern age progression) and this could become really clumsy UI.

Ok, so this setting alone itself is not that complicated (depending on particular implementation and UI), but what if there are other options which mess with civ selection? They could collide in quite interesting ways and require even more clumsy UI.

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

as a customer i love having options. i would love to see an option to play a "classical" game with no civ switching . since firaxis tracks so much data for achievements and other stuff the results of how wide spread civ switching and how popular the classical approach is would be interesting too

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

as a customer i love having options. i would love to see an option to play a "classical" game with no civ switching . since firaxis tracks so much data for achievements and other stuff the results of how wide spread civ switching and how popular the classical approach is would be interesting too

That definitely won't be possible, you may as well forget it. They may give players some measure of control over switching, as @ColtSeavers suggests, but honestly I think even this is unlikely, unfortunately.

 

[Kev1916]

When this game stumbles out of the gate sales wise, and not enough folk's are conned by the appalling monetization ( and 2K s piecemeal DLC's ) , it won't surprise me at all when Firaxis releases a patch to include a single civ playthrough option.

 

[stealth_nsk]

When this game stumbles out of the gate sales wise, and not enough folk's are conned by the appalling monetization ( and 2K s piecemeal DLC's ) , it won't surprise me at all when Firaxis releases a patch to include a single civ playthrough option.

1. I really doubt the game will have big sales problems. Nothing indicates towards it so far.
2. If the game will have any problems with sales, the civ switching will be really down on the list. Price seem to be the top concern. Actually even Denuvo, while being totally imaginary enemy, seem to concern people more than civ switching.
3. This "patch" would require total game rework to be usable.

So, honestly, I see zero chances for this to happen.

 

[Inhalaattori]

I dont think there is "Civ Switching Controversy" - at least not anymore. Many people had reservations, partly because of Humankind and how civ switching was implemented in that game. After it was revealed how civ switching works in Civ 7 I have not really seen that much negativity.

What I have seen outside of Civ Fanatics is criticism against Denuvo and also some criticism against Harriet Tubman as a leader.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

There are a lot of different things here:

1. Complains about civ switching being ahistorical are made by people who are both history geeks and civ fanatics (if you're just history geek, the previous system of civ staying through the whole game could look even weirder to you). That's generally a minority and people who'll probably buy the game anyway.

I don't think you must be a history geek or even a civilization fanatic to build your immersion around leading a specific Civilization. There is a group of players who enjoy leading "their nation", especially among medium or light users. Just look how many social media posts are about adding "our" Civilization to the game. I don't have detailed data, but it is rather safe to say that forced swapping of Civilizations to a large extent is not welcomed in this segment.
Also, I dare to say history geeks will be more likely to accept this solution.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't think you must be a history geek or even a civilization fanatic to build your immersion around leading a specific Civilization. There is a group of players who enjoy leading "their nation", especially among medium or light users. Just look how many social media posts are about adding "our" Civilization to the game. I don't have detailed data, but it is rather safe to say that forced swapping of Civilizations to a large extent is not welcomed in this segment.
Also, I dare to say history geeks will be more likely to accept this solution.

I don't think the group which enjoys leading only their nation is that large. And Civ7 actually has a trick for them - if you pick a relevant leader, you could choose your civ in the exploration/modern age no matter which previous civs you choose. America even has two such leaders, white man and black woman, to cover most of the audience needs. So, I really doubt this audience would have any significant effect on the sales.

Actually, sales figures depend a lot on media representation. People watch youtubers they trust to make decision about whether to buy the game, and as I see so far, bloggers rate Civ7 quite high.

Selling DLC and expansions is a different story, which actually depends on player experience, so let's see how it goes.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I don't think the group which enjoys leading only their nation is that large. And Civ7 actually has a trick for them - if you pick a relevant leader, you could choose your civ in the exploration/modern age no matter which previous civs you choose. America even has two such leaders, white man and black woman, to cover most of the audience needs. So, I really doubt this audience would have any significant effect on the sales.

Actually, sales figures depend a lot on media representation. People watch youtubers they trust to make decision about whether to buy the game, and as I see so far, bloggers rate Civ7 quite high.

Selling DLC and expansions is a different story, which actually depends on player experience, so let's see how it goes.

Without data, we cannot settle it
But I am inclined to the thesis that people care about what Civilization they play not a leader. An opposite leader is a better AI opponent's avatar than an abstract Civilization. But it's just my observation. If I am right they made a mistake.
I agree that YouTubers and Influencers contribute directly to sales, but DLC is a different story. DLC is about the engagement. Perhaps that's why they pushed the monetization of pre-order editions so much. They know they risk a lot and it might affect DLC sales.