Firaxis cannot control for all possible Civ/Leader Combos, and multiplayer gaming might reach a new peak as a consequence.

[SammyKhalifa]

MP will only flourish fully, if they drop the 5-player restriction with which Civ7 supposedly will launch.
Taking my weekly Civ6-group of 8 people as an example: we were ready to hop on the hypetrain and dreamt of fantastic civ-combos throughout the ages ... until we learned about the restriction ... which led to said hypetrain continuing its route without us for now.

Frankly though I hope they don't diminish the SP game (because of whatever mechanic is causing the issue) in order to make MP better.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Frankly though I hope they don't diminish the SP game (because of whatever mechanic is causing the issue) in order to make MP better.

i think my main question is what the map expansion really does. our current understanding is it’s meant to simulate the old world discovering the new world—but is the implication that when you play, you will only ever be an old world civilization?

if so, the solution is really simple in a MP setting: assign some civs to one half of the map and the rest to the other, and reveal them to each other when the map expansion happens.

 

[Inawordyes]

I suspect they'll change it to 8 max before release (because that's what they seem to have currently planned for the Modern Age in multiplayer), and make optional whatever mechanic is blocking the three extra civs in the Ancient and Exploration Age.

I guess those are the three Civs that spawn when you move from the Ancient to the Exploration Age, though we still don't really know how that works.

To my knowledge, the cap on human players isn't necessarily a converse cap on AI players. You can probably still have 12-20 Civs total in a game depending on the overall size of the map, you just can't (as of right now), have more than 5 humans playing one of those civs outside of the Modern Age.

We need a better confirmation on whether it applies to just human-controlled civs or total civs, though; I can't imagine you only being able to set a max of 7 other civs (Ai or human) in a single game spanning all 3 ages

 

[Ornen]

That being said, I'm not expecting much in terms of balance for Civ VII multiplayer. It's practically impossible to balance a 4X game for multiplayer, and I don't see why Civ VII would be different. At most I could see it being too complex for a single meta to emerge but I'm not convinced of that until I see it. (personally I also don't think devs should put disproportionate effort into balancing multiplayer, precisely because it's so difficult - imo, the percentage of number tweaking that's done with multiplayer in mind should be equivalent to the percentage of games that are multiplayer, out of all games played)

I agree with this. when have they ever really cared about balancing multiplayer? I'd wager the Civ audience plays roughly...

• 50% casual SP
• 25% hard SP
• 20% casual MP
• 5% competitive MP

not exact figures but I don't think competitive MP is a core part of the game, or what they are going to design far.

if a competitive MP emerges it will likely include its own meta & possibly banning certain combos/picks. not familiar enough with the Civ MP scene to know how they do it now, but idk if you can get much more OP than, say, Peter/Russia/Work Ethic

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I agree with this. when have they ever really cared about balancing multiplayer? I'd wager the Civ audience plays roughly...

• 50% casual SP
• 25% hard SP
• 20% casual MP
• 5% competitive MP

not exact figures but I don't think competitive MP is a core part of the game, or what they are going to design far.

if a competitive MP emerges it will likely include its own meta & possibly banning certain combos/picks. not familiar enough with the Civ MP scene to know how they do it now, but idk if you can get much more OP than, say, Peter/Russia/Work Ethic

Pretty sure you're overestimating the percentage of the player base that plays single player on higher difficulty levels. Speaking about Civ 6 here. Anyone still playing older versions of the game is likely playing on harder levels or (even more likely) using mods to make the game more challenging. But the paying customer base for new releases is heavily skewed towards casual players.

 

[Ornen]

Pretty sure you're overestimating the percentage of the player base that plays single player on higher difficulty levels. Speaking about Civ 6 here. Anyone still playing older versions of the game is likely playing on harder levels or (even more likely) using mods to make the game more challenging. But the paying customer base for new releases is heavily skewed towards casual players.

sure, maybe, they're just napkin numbers. and in any case it's secondary to the point

 

[Voidwalkin]

Pretty sure you're overestimating the percentage of the player base that plays single player on higher difficulty levels. Speaking about Civ 6 here. Anyone still playing older versions of the game is likely playing on harder levels or (even more likely) using mods to make the game more challenging. But the paying customer base for new releases is heavily skewed towards casual players.

IDK.

You're probably right that most players don't play deity in 6. They probably could, though. The difficulty scale is much lower than past games. Your average casual probably could adapt to deity pretty easily.

I think devs may have underestimated the player base a little, honestly. Not at the top end - at the low end. Low skilled players coulda handled far more than the default difficulty gave you.

I mostly skipped 5, but I had played 4 pretty extensively. I won my first deity game on 6 very early with a Roman legionnaire strat. Took me years on 4.

3 I was a kid and just used the unit editor to give Iroquois mounted warriors max unit strength. I had a huge interest in Tecumseh and the Iroqouis were the closest thing to it. Never really played it as intended. Was a great time, though.

Peter/Russia/Work Ethic

Earlier combat bonuses are usually best value. They allow faster snowball. Monte, with early combat power and ability to rapidly develop, is probably strongest IMO. Peter would get run over by any adjacent Monte, who is frequently not even allowed in-game.

You'd basically have to play Monte to have a shot against a neighboring Monte. It would all be Monte.

 

[greenOak]

if a competitive MP emerges it will likely include its own meta & possibly banning certain combos/picks. not familiar enough with the Civ MP scene to know how they do it now, but idk if you can get much more OP than, say, Peter/Russia/Work Ethic

The better balanced game mod is pretty standard for competitive mp. Nothing is banned, there's just a bunch of balance changes to civs, leaders, buildings, pantheons, etc. For example, BBG nerfed Russia big time because of how OP they are and they're still great in MP (at least in 4v4, I never played FFA). Monumentality, work ethic, and dance of the aurora are all nerfed in the mod as well. Needless to say, the Russia work ethic strat isn't nearly as good as it is in SP.

I expect a similar mod will eventually be made for civ 7 mp but I'm guessing it will require more changes than the civ 6 mp mod.

 

[Kev1916]

The Elephant in the room may be what this means and why do you need a 2K account no more local saves ???

"Unlock progression bonuses for your leaders across multiple gameplay sessions ! ( are they turning Civkind into a Fortnight game with leader boards with lots of costumes and bonuses to your "leader"

Online play and features (including progression bonuses) require an Internet connection and 2K Account (minimum age varies). Up to five players supported in the Antiquity & Exploration Ages. Up to eight players supported in the Modern Age. Map size restrictions may apply to certain cross-play multiplayer games. Terms apply.

 

[AntSou]

Online play and features (including progression bonuses) require an Internet connection and 2K Account (minimum age varies).

Interesting, I had not paid attention to that before.

Does anyone know what the advantages are to them of having the account connected to 2k, and why do they put so much effort into it? Can't they access player data without it or something?

Progression bonuses aren't a bad thing, and I don't really get the comparison to Fortnite when they have existed since I can remember, UNLESS they are specific to multiplayer, or worse, require a battlepass.

There's no reason to fear the latter, and I hope they won't lock content behind multiplayer progression because that would be really stupid. Forcing players who don't want to play multiplayer to play it just to get a persona (which is what I suspect the bonus might be) would make it a bad experience for everyone involved.

 

[Gorbles]

Interesting, I had not paid attention to that before.

Does anyone know what the advantages are to them of having the account connected to 2k, and why do they put so much effort into it? Can't they access player data without it or something?

Progression bonuses aren't a bad thing, and I don't really get the comparison to Fortnite when they have existed since I can remember, UNLESS they are specific to multiplayer, or worse, require a battlepass.

There's no reason to fear the latter, and I hope they won't lock content behind multiplayer progression because that would be really stupid. Forcing players who don't want to play multiplayer to play it just to get a persona (which is what I suspect the bonus might be) would make it a bad experience for everyone involved.

This is complete speculation, and in no way a defense of "you should connect your account" (even if I will, because I do it for a ton of other stuff, non-2K, whatever). But basically progression bonuses have to be tied to you. They can't be local, otherwise someone would find a way of editing them. Which means they need persisted online. To be GDPR-compliant, they can't just shove it in a random box and store it - there has to be oversight, the ability to service deletion requests, and so on.

Now, GDPR isn't universal, but there's also very little point making a system that works for the countries you need to be GDPR-compliant for and then another one for all the other countries. The company I work at services countries in and out of GDPR, but we provide the same deletion request services and anonymisation of data for all of our clients.

Tying it to an existing player account system likely solves a lot of this, from an infrastructure (and legal) point of view.

Hope y'all enjoyed the tangent. I like history, but my expertise is very much more digital haha.

 

[pokiehl]

No one knows what “progression bonuses” refers to but it’s definitely something to do with the “player profile”. My guess is it’s profile cosmetics or something.

Having you get a 2k account probably isn’t about getting your data - they already have sophisticated telemetry like any other AAA game. Seems like 2k is pushing it so they have a way to contact you about promotions, sales, and new releases.

 

[Gorbles]

Oh, yeah, marketing too. No doubt.

 

[Kev1916]

Interesting, I had not paid attention to that before.

Does anyone know what the advantages are to them of having the account connected to 2k, and why do they put so much effort into it? Can't they access player data without it or something?

Progression bonuses aren't a bad thing, and I don't really get the comparison to Fortnite when they have existed since I can remember, UNLESS they are specific to multiplayer, or worse, require a battlepass.

There's no reason to fear the latter, and I hope they won't lock content behind multiplayer progression because that would be really stupid. Forcing players who don't want to play multiplayer to play it just to get a persona (which is what I suspect the bonus might be) would make it a bad experience for everyone involved.

Re Fortnight they along with say Dota have a Meta, TBF younger more casual players may well Like the idea of leveling up there leader and getting new costume's for there toon.
Maybe the OP was right sadly thou Im out too old to grind for a new hat

Be interesting to see how it pan's out fron offical site
Compete against other players online and prove your prowess as a great leader.*
Players who link their 2K Account to Sid Meier's Civilization VII will be able to play multiplayer across any platform of choice.*

*Online play and features (including progression bonuses) require an Internet connection and 2K Account (minimum age varies).
Players who link their 2K Account to the platform used to play Sid Meier's Civilization VII will share game progression to any platform linked with the same account.
Leaders have unique progression bonuses that enhance their abilities as the game progresses

 

[AntSou]

My guess is it’s profile cosmetics or something.

I was hoping Personas like unlocking new characters in old games, but that's clearly too optimistic.

It's probably just icons, lol.

 

[Siptah]

e

I was hoping Personas like unlocking new characters in old games, but that's clearly too optimistic.

It's probably just icons, lol.

i believe the deluxe cosmetic pack gives an impression of what to expect as progression bonuses: banners, icons, borders, etc.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Civ 6 had player limits that could be changed with a mod. If they are not in 7 as well i'd be surprised.

 

[Thormodr]

Tbf Spiffing Brit would find the needle in the haystack.

I understand your worries, yet there's a different balancing act that comes of it, which you can see, for instance, in Magic the Gathering Modern. If the paths towards OPness are many, the balancing occurs on those grounds alone. It is wild and out of control, even with banned cards, and I think that's what draw many players to it, while others avoid it.

In Civ 6 OP civs and leaders would be locked to the player picking them (unless duplicates were allowed? But duplicates are lame).

In Civ 7, even with theoretical OP combinations, factors specific to the game you're currently playing may still make some paths better than others. So not only are there more paths available by default, developments through out the game might make selection of one Civ over another the better choice, and this may be difficult to predict and plan in advance.

Mtg is an interesting example. Some formats have absolutely broken cards and it's broken deck playing against broken deck. Vintage is just nuts.

I am pretty much a single player only for Civ. I don't mind a bit or even a bunch of imbalance for that. Vintage Civ.

However, you need balance for multiplayer or else how could people have you know what measuring contests.

 

[Nikolai II]

Civ 6 had player limits that could be changed with a mod. If they are not in 7 as well i'd be surprised.

I wonder how big maps can be made with mods, without imploding the PC.

 

[ls612]

I wonder how big maps can be made with mods, without imploding the PC.

The limiting factor is probably single threaded CPU performance. I doubt they will have graceful multi-thread scaling beyond a few threads.