They've already implemented it though: disasters and emergencies. We just want more stuff like that. Even WC has elements of this.
I mean, more stuff like that would be great, but I don't think either of those are setbacks. The disasters also give you permanent yields on the tiles, and the emergencies give someone a huge reward for participating. The World Congress is the closest thing with the voting, and I hear people complain about how the AIs all vote as a monolith and the player loses any sort of control over their own destiny. I myself don't mind this because you can still control what you do because of that, but I think the point stands.
It was an observation, not a complain. I dont know what the FXS design process was.
Im sure you have seen people complaining about stupid things. Im sure a lot of people rage quit civ6 for the art style, for the dumb AI, or many things.
Not everything is for everyone, since if you try to make something for everyone it will probably appeal to no one.
Again, what kind of setback are you talking about. An hypothetical setback that does not exist yet and deppends on an impleme tation that has not happened?
I really don't understand your point. Do you think that there is no room for any difficulty or negative effect in Civ? Cause that was my only point.
My apologies, then.
The impression I got from all of the posters was that they wanted something to "shake up the late game", as in make the winner uncertain again, aka undo your snowball or help others catch up to your level of snowball. As Civ is a race game, those types of things are inherently problematic. If getting ahead just causes you to fall behind when that late-game shake-up comes along, then you would choose not to get ahead. If falling behind causes you to slingshot to victory when that late-game shake-up comes along, then you would purposely fall behind, and playing well would become about...playing poorly (sorta)? If the shake-up is NOT enough to do these things, then it doesn't really do anything at all. And if it hits the sweetspot where you aren't certain if it is enough or not, then that instead makes the whole game up until then *pointless* rather than inverted, since by returning things to even ground all you've done is reset to the beginning of the game.
Look at Mario Kart. The items you get when in 1st place are generally meh, while you can get targeted by other items (Red/Blue Shells). The items you get in last place are enough to bring you halfway through the pack, or if the race was hotly contested in the first place, all the way to 1st place. So if you are WAY better than everyone else at the racing portion of the game, you can stay in 1st all game and still win despite the items. If not, you'd be better off staying in 2nd to avoid Blue Shells, or to fall back to last to get a good item, then race back up the ranks and then use that item at the last second.
This is fine because Mario Kart is designed for this experience. Races are short, the controls and characters are casual-friendly so people are not as heavily invested in the outcome, and a wide variety of people with different skill levels can play together because the items even the playing field. Now if you tried to put items in Gran Turismo, I think people would have a fit. That game is harder to control, and as a more simulation-heavy game is geared toward people who become invested in the outcome. They want the best driver to win, full stop.
Civ is somewhere in between. It is no WWII simulator, nor is it the Sims. It has a casual-friendly theme, but is filled with strategy elements. So you get many players, even strategy gamers, who play for that feeling that the theme gives them, of building up a civilization through history. This is the design of the game, and since it is a race game, the game mechanics line up rather well with this feeling. Unfortunately, for anyone that actually cares about the game being challenging (and no, not talking about difficulty level, because the official difficulty levels only make the beginning challenging, not the whole game), this snowballing leads to the "victory is inevitable" problem that plagues the late game, and always has in the series.
If you want to shake up the late game, the first thing you need to do is change the victory conditions to not be a race game. And that is too extreme a change for them to do in an expansion, I think. I hope they consider this for Civ7, especially with Humankind and Old World offering up some innovative ideas on this front.
Now if you just want the feeling of a setback, but it to not affect your chances of winning that much, or it to not be based on how well you were doing beforehand? Then I would call that "lessened waxing" as I said before, not waning. So it wouldn't feel like a setback to me at all. And if everyone gets the same setback, then why even bother? Flavor?
).
