From the Devs: Developing Your Settlements

[ombak]

As someone who has just lurked lately, it does feel a bit like the desire to see the game "fixed" is leading to unrealistic expectations for this individual patch.

We always knew that this was the RtR Part 2 patch. I'm glad it contains more than that because the game does need it, but I'm not sure why this update suddenly had higher expectations behind it.

Similarly, with the "we need a new roadmap" thread, I get the desire for one, and I hope we do get one, but it seemed weird to me to expect it before the RtR patch. The long-term direction of the game might feel unclear, especially when there are so many ideas of what is needed, but the direction until September was communicated and met.

 

[tman2000]

Wait?! There are people complaining that this update is too small?! How is an update that adds major changes to the UI, does a big balance pass on building costs, attributes and city-states bonuses, uses a completely new engine for map generation, adds 2 new map types and changes Napoleon's bonuses, a small update?!

I seriously contest the argument that the UI changes are major.

 

[Pfeffersack]

It feels small I think, but not through any fault of Firaxis'. It's just

The UI changes are pretty much the same as mods.

The Map types were probably a big deal. But it kind of feels like the map issues were mostly fixed already.

I think the biggest thing is the city state stuff. The switch to fixed values instead of % values will also be really good for the game. That said it definitely doesn't help exploration where the legacy paths are the biggest issue. And probably doesn't help modern or curtail snowballing if the AI is subject to the same constraints.

I have no doubt that it was a lot of work, and it's a step in the right direction... But this definitely won't right the ship yet.

Yes, content and size of the update is good itself for an update...it is just Civ7's overall condition being troublesome making it appear "pale". But even when taking that in account this update is not (necessarily) in vain: The devs approach to patching Civ7 seems to be generally to pave the way with a smaller update, then following up with bigger changes. That delays big, game-changing alterations, but I'm fine with it...as long as they are allowed to go that way further. The only real danger is that further development is dependent on economic sucess of the game and might end too early. However, I'm not sure if their is a real alternative: What would be gained if the devs rush out "big" changes in "panic mode"? Nothing...rather in contrary...least what the game needs is new stuff or changes not working properly or conflicting with something else. So, if the devs e.g. brew something out like a "classic mode", a 4th age or are complete rewok of the religion system...then they should take there time to get it right and make it sit. As those are kind of "last bullets" anyway (if those things still don't land, than it might be literally game over for Civ7)

 

[stealth_nsk]

For those disappointed the update is not bigger: anything with a x.x.x (e.g. 1.2.5) number is usually a relatively minor QOL/bugfix update. Expect larger changes at x.x (e.g. 1.3) and major differences at x.0 (e.g. 2.0).

Of course this pattern does not always hold true due to timelines, process quirks, and how things get shuffled around, but it's a good general yardstick to help manage expectations.

I've been playing other things the last few months but map generation changes are exciting and I'm thinking of playing a game or two before going back to other games and books currently holding my attention.

This pattern rarely used to define "size" of the changes. Semver is usually based on compatibility changes and I've seen first version ticking after change in a single parameter without any functional changes at all.

It's speculated that Civ7 version numbers are tied to content, since we've seen 1.2 after CotW was released. By this logic, next patch after 1.2.5 will be 1.3.0, regardless of the size of its content.

 

[m_mus]

I'd hope for the contrary, since "religion" and "pertaining identity throughout ages" had been mentioned back in July (I think?) as something they are working on but which yet has to be implemented. I really hope 1.3.0 kicks off with them addressing these issues, which I find quite pressing. And since quite some time has passed since the initial mention, I hope they are cooking something big for us.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I seriously contest the argument that the UI changes are major.

Of course you do.

 

[Leucarum]

They're major but already exist in mods which makes them a lot less exciting for players not using consoles (or who don't use mods for whatever reason)..

 

[Gorbles]

They're major but already exist in mods which makes them a lot less exciting for players not using consoles..

The assumption that only console players don't use mods is one that I doubt can be proven. I (despite often modding games myself, and advocating for mod support), don't use mods much at all. I don't actually have any installed for VII at the moment.

Mod usage is always a minority of the playerbase (by demographic) - especially when it comes to evaluating targeted improvements like the city growth UI / UX here.

 

[Leucarum]

The assumption that only console players don't use mods is one that I doubt can be proven. I (despite often modding games myself, and advocating for mod support), don't use mods much at all. I don't actually have any installed for VII at the moment.

Mod usage is always a minority of the playerbase (by demographic) - especially when it comes to evaluating targeted improvements like the city growth UI / UX here.

Will edit post.

UI changes are definitely not a bad thing to have and I'd love for Firaxis to make some mods official coughEnduringEmpirescough. So I'm not disagreeing, just saying the existence of mods make a lot of the changes less important for a reasonable chunk of the playerbase

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I seriously contest the argument that the UI changes are major.

The UI changes are major because there is a lot going on "under the hood". It is more than just changing the icons on the screen. For one, the devs had to rewrite the algorithm for calculating expected yields. And this new algorithm applies not just for placing buildings but also for growth events and specialists. In addition to writing a new algorithm, they also had to create all the new panels that explain every building effect, as well as the panels that show the before and after yields. So there was new algorithms as well as new UI that had to be written, tested and validated.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Don't forget that UI changes affect all platforms with various controllers, take into account various resolutions, etc. It's really a huge work.

EDIT: Not to mention the concept itself is not that easy even with the help of mods, choosing the most useful approach in UX is hard.

 

[Gorbles]

So I'm not disagreeing, just saying the existence of mods make a lot of the changes less important for a reasonable chunk of the playerbase

I guess I still disagree (that the chunk is reasonable to make a dent in the positive impact this patch will bring to this area), but agree to disagree regardless

Personally, even if everyone on the planet used mods, I think nativising fixes and improvements is important. People (not you or I here, just speaking generally) often criticise developers for leaving it to the modders to fix things. Having the ability to pick up mods, with the developers improving what they can as they go, is the best of both worlds (and would be even if a game was launched to positive reviews, in good shape, and so on).

 

[stealth_nsk]

I guess I still disagree (that the chunk is reasonable to make a dent in the positive impact this patch will bring to this area), but agree to disagree regardless

Personally, even if everyone on the planet used mods, I think nativising fixes and improvements is important. People (not you or I here, just speaking generally) often criticise developers for leaving it to the modders to fix things. Having the ability to pick up mods, with the developers improving what they can as they go, is the best of both worlds (and would be even if a game was launched to positive reviews, in good shape, and so on).

Let's hope some people from Bethesda read this as well...

 

[Leucarum]

I guess I still disagree (that the chunk is reasonable to make a dent in the positive impact this patch will bring to this area), but agree to disagree regardless

Personally, even if everyone on the planet used mods, I think nativising fixes and improvements is important. People (not you or I here, just speaking generally) often criticise developers for leaving it to the modders to fix things. Having the ability to pick up mods, with the developers improving what they can as they go, is the best of both worlds (and would be even if a game was launched to positive reviews, in good shape, and so on).

I think the disagreement over mods is pretty trivial TBH. I've said previously that the most important thing for Civ7 early on was mod support to be released so Firaxis could see what worked and copy it. If anything I think it's a problem that the modding community hasn't taken off as much as I expected. Firaxis have less homework to plagerize than I'd hoped.

I think the main disagreement is that this patch probably doesn't move the needle much for me. I don't mind the maps as we have them, and I already use mods which implement the main UI changes. So that leaves it with the question of how good are the new balance changes. They seem like a step in the right direction, but probably not enough to win me over to the later 2 ages of the game. I will try a full game at least.

It sounds like a lot of other people feel similarly, and I get that relative to the work the devs have put in dismissing it as an unimpressive patch is depressing. But... That's where it feels for me And the hint at pirates is just... "Thanks, I hate it!"

 

[Krikkit1]

I think the disagreement over mods is pretty trivial TBH. I've said previously that the most important thing for Civ7 early on was mod support to be released so Firaxis could see what worked and copy it. If anything I think it's a problem that the modding community hasn't taken off as much as I expected. Firaxis have less homework to plagerize than I'd hoped.

I think the main disagreement is that this patch probably doesn't move the needle much for me. I don't mind the maps as we have them, and I already use mods which implement the main UI changes. So that leaves it with the question of how good are the new balance changes. They seem like a step in the right direction, but probably not enough to win me over to the later 2 ages of the game. I will try a full game at least.

It sounds like a lot of other people feel similarly, and I get that relative to the work the devs have put in dismissing it as an unimpressive patch is depressing. But... That's where it feels for me And the hint at pirates is just... "Thanks, I hate it!"

That is one thing that I agree would actually be Bad. Al the things they have done so far have improved the game. Maybe not a lot or not soon enough, but I think they have all been improvements.

Adding Edward Teach as a Leader would be an improvement. Adding a Pirate civ when there are less than 70-80 other civs, would make the game worse.

 

[Brutus2]

I’m begging you, please stop using red numbers on a dark background. I get that red is kinda the standard color for negative or bad, but it is so hard to see. If you want a better UI, start by using better color choices so we can actually read it easily.

This has nothing to do with color blindness and there are no mods that I’m aware of to change it. Red on dark is generally more difficult for anyone to see and is considered poor design in websites for example.

I'm happy to report, it looks like they made some improvement in today's patch. They are still using red text but they changed the font or something that makes it a little easier to read. I would still prefer a different color but it is a little better at least.

 

[tman2000]

The UI changes are major because there is a lot going on "under the hood". It is more than just changing the icons on the screen. For one, the devs had to rewrite the algorithm for calculating expected yields. And this new algorithm applies not just for placing buildings but also for growth events and specialists. In addition to writing a new algorithm, they also had to create all the new panels that explain every building effect, as well as the panels that show the before and after yields. So there was new algorithms as well as new UI that had to be written, tested and validated.

That's not "a lot" under the hood, IMO.

 

[Kmart_Elvis]

Let's hope some people from Bethesda read this as well...

As a huge BGS fan, hear hear!

I will say FXS has been much more earnest and trying to fix Civ 7 than BGS has been with Starfield. The amount of updates and work are so much better from FXS. Starfield's updates were so few and far between and really haven't changed much.