FXS needs to put out a new roadmap - direction of the game is unclear

[m_mus]

So I have been watching Van Bradley's video on the recent layoffs and I felt myself nodding to the general gist of his feeling: I belong to the minority of people actually liking the core-mechanics of Civ7 (civ-switching, age-transitions), but I don't have a tangible idea of where the game will go from here. The impression which I am left with on the patching effort since release is, that FXS provided ever more customisation options to enable softening Civ7's core-mechanics or switching some of their aspects off entirely.
But we don't know whether these measures are to serve merely as a band-aid up until they have reworked their core-mechanics to a standard that would be acceptable to more people ... or if they are going to ditch these mechanics eventually wholesale (by making 'continuity' the new Default-option, by maybe offering a classical mode further down the road ...).
As VB puts it in his video, Civ7 doesn't connect well with its audience. They connect with me, but looking toward the drop in playercount, this does not hold true for the majority of those having tried the game.
I simply want to know whether going forward which audience FXS will target by which means to reconnect or keep those around having fun as is. Will they cater to those who like their initial vision ("History is built in layers")? Will they cater to those who like the vision in theory but are increasingly disappointed with its execution / lack of substantial improvement (me)? Or will they cater to those to whom age transitions and civ-switching are deal-breakers?
I guess all of us would profit from FXS declaring into which direction they'll steer the game. Some of us could make peace and bid the game farewell, as no improvement (depending on your perspective on Civ7) is to be expected, others could keep hope to cling on or to return at some point.

So, FXS, what is your vision for Civ7 going forward? Communicate with us, pretty please.

 

[Siptah]

+1

September is also the perfect timing for not just a roadmap, but also a dev diary on the post-launch.

 

[Krikkit1]

So I have been watching Van Bradley's video on the recent layoffs and I felt myself nodding to the general gist of his feeling: I belong to the minority of people actually liking the core-mechanics of Civ7 (civ-switching, age-transitions), but I don't have a tangible idea of where the game will go from here. The impression which I am left with on the patching effort since release is, that FXS provided ever more customisation options to enable softening Civ7's core-mechanics or switching some of their aspects off entirely.
But we don't know whether these measures are to serve merely as a band-aid up until they have reworked their core-mechanics to a standard that would be acceptable to more people ... or if they are going to ditch these mechanics eventually wholesale (by making 'continuity' the new Default-option, by maybe offering a classical mode further down the road ...).
As VB puts it in his video, Civ7 doesn't connect well with its audience. They connect with me, but looking toward the drop in playercount, this does not hold true for the majority of those having tried the game.
I simply want to know whether going forward which audience FXS will target by which means to reconnect or keep those around having fun as is. Will they cater to those who like their initial vision ("History is built in layers")? Will they cater to those who like the vision in theory but are increasingly disappointed with its execution / lack of substantial improvement (me)? Or will they cater to those to whom age transitions and civ-switching are deal-breakers?
I guess all of us would profit from FXS declaring into which direction they'll steer the game. Some of us could make peace and bid the game farewell, as no improvement (depending on your perspective on Civ7) is to be expected, others could keep hope to cling on or to return at some point.

So, FXS, what is your vision for Civ7 going forward? Communicate with us, pretty please.

I bb think the issue of the “deal breaker” crowd is they can point out specific problems with the feature that may be fixable, (possibly even for them)

So it is worth listening to them even if the feature isn’t going away (1UPT) it can be made better for other players.(commanders)

Actually wholesale removal of transitions or civ switches seems very unlikely, but improving the flow or sense of identity (what each of those endanger, respectively). Is something that can be done. (they mentioned improving your sense of identity)

So while Legacy paths/Crises can be switched off, I assume they will still improve all of them to make the gameplay involved better. (they mentioned improving religion)

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Will they cater to those who like their initial vision ("History is built in layers")? Will they cater to those who like the vision in theory but are increasingly disappointed with its execution / lack of substantial improvement (me)? Or will they cater to those to whom age transitions and civ-switching are deal-breakers?

I'm in the "hated the initial vision but hoped they would prove me wrong" camp, I got a lot of fun out of Civ VII for the first few weeks - I have just under 400 hours in the game.

Actually wholesale removal of transitions or civ switches seems very unlikely, but improving the flow or sense of identity (what each of those endanger, respectively). Is something that can be done. (they mentioned improving your sense of identity)

This is the biggest thing for me - something like one Civ & Leader for the whole game but you have different cultures for each era. I envisage a much less jarring transition to a new age, something like a screen is presented with the following message prompting you to make your choice.

O Hannibal, son of Carthage,
mighty leader of an empire born of fire and salt,
you have bent the bow and ploughed the earth,
scribed the word upon clay and papyrus,
forged copper into the bite of the spear,
and set sail upon seas that whisper the horizon’s call.

Yet now your people murmur in the markets and in the courts,
that the age of the old ways wanes,
and a new destiny waits to be written.

Three voices rise to claim your future:

* The Merchants of Spain:
They speak of rivers that bind lands like veins,
of ships with bellies full of spice and silver,
of far-off ports where the sun never sets.
They bid you take the helm of trade,
and make the world your marketplace.

* The Riders of the Steppe, called the Mongols:
Their eyes gleam with the fury of storm-winds,
their steeds thunder like the pulse of the earth.
They would have you master the saddle,
wielding cavalry as fire across the plains,
until all kingdoms bow beneath your banners.

* The Abbasids, keepers of wisdom’s flame:
Cloaked in scrolls, their hands stained with ink,
they summon you toward the boundless sky of thought.
“Let the sword sleep,” they say,
“and let the mind awaken—
for in knowledge lies a conquest greater than empires.”

What is your choice oh Hannibal - which path will your people take?

 

[Gorbles]

I think unfortunately any roadmap will be longer coming than anyone would like. Layoffs have a habit of upsetting any internal plans, and it takes time to get back on board with the reduced headcount going forwards.

(source is both personal and anecdotal - I've survived one major round of layoffs where I work, and another headcount reduction were folks were re-assigned across the business internally)

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Sar did mention they were planning to reveal the road ahead once Right to Rule hits, or something along those lines.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Sar did mention they were planning to reveal the road ahead once Right to Rule hits, or something along those lines.

The first half of Right to Rule is already out, unless do they mean later this month after the second half releases?

 

[Krikkit1]

The first half of Right to Rule is already out, unless do they mean later this month after the second half releases?

would make sense, the
“now we have delivered everything paid for(and some improvements) here are the plans for future improvements” (and DLC…possibly including expansion depending on how far out they want to show us)

 

[JNR13]

I can't play a roadmap, so honestly I don't really care whether they give us one or not. Roadmaps fall under "announcements of announcements" to me and all they do is have me stop playing because they make me aware that a better version of the game is *just* around the corner, but permanently so.

 

[Leucarum]

I think a roadmap for future DLC is less important than a roadmap for future changes. I'm disinclined to buy DLC in a similar format to R2R or Crossroads...

 

[britesparc]

As one of the ones for whom the switching and transitions are an enormous deal breaker, I would appreciate at the very least a statement as to whether a "classic" mode is ever coming out. I don't even need a timescale, just whether it'll ever happen or not.

If they say that they don't intend to offer a mode without those mechanics then at least I can switch off until (hopefully) Civ VIII. I keep hanging around just in case there's news of a classic mode.

 

[Foulweather]

I'm generally unsatisfied with the game design, and I wonder if instituting a classic mode would solve the identity problem or (most likely) feel just as unsatisfying since it conflicts with the direction of the rest of the design.

And there are a lot of people who won't come back unless they can play America in antiquity or win a space race as Rome. The current design of the game was a giant and seemingly unnecessary risk, and it's hard to claw back to classic now when things aren't going well.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think a roadmap for future DLC is less important than a roadmap for future changes. I'm disinclined to buy DLC in a similar format to R2R or Crossroads...

Well maybe for you, but for them
1. improvements and DLC are both things they work on (ie it’s on their roadmap)

2. the roadmaps presented to us are marketing and the producer is only interested in getting people to buy the DLC…so even if all that is mentioned is “no more now, but watch this space as we continue to improve the game”
(I’m hoping for a free December DLC of the Byzantine civ..for St. Nick)

 

[Leucarum]

Well maybe for you, but for them
1. improvements and DLC are both things they work on (ie it’s on their roadmap)

2. the roadmaps presented to us are marketing and the producer is only interested in getting people to buy the DLC…so even if all that is mentioned is “no more now, but watch this space as we continue to improve the game”
(I’m hoping for a free December DLC of the Byzantine civ..for St. Nick)

Firaxis aren't going to win me over with DLC. I regret purchasing a higher tier as I don't think what I've got out of it has been worth the cost.

So yes for me, the thing I am looking for in the roadmap is evidence of planned changes to the game.

 

[Krikkit1]

Firaxis aren't going to win me over with DLC. I regret purchasing a higher tier as I don't think what I've got out of it has been worth the cost.

So yes for me, the thing I am looking for in the roadmap is evidence of planned changes to the game.

And that’s why they will announce changes to the game.
Because the devs want you to like the game
and the producers want you to like the game enough to buy DLC.

So I presume there will be a lot of (plans for) base game changes announced. But there will also be some info on DLC (even if the info is “more will come but we are working on the base game first”)

 

[sonicmyst]

I agree with a roadmap. Having a roadmap shows at least what would they be willing to commit. It will also show how far into the future do we have support for further improvements and dlcs for this game.

 

[m_mus]

I can't play a roadmap, so honestly I don't really care whether they give us one or not. Roadmaps fall under "announcements of announcements" to me and all they do is have me stop playing because they make me aware that a better version of the game is *just* around the corner, but permanently so.

I understand the sentiment, but looking for example at myself, I kind of want to know, if me spending hours into leveling up certain leaders to unlock certain mementos is worth the effort. Will the game improve to my liking? Will it turn into a direction I don't want to invest in my time (and further money)? If FXS announced their intention to rework certain base game mechanics which appear faulty to me as is, I'd be more likely to play right now even though I find aspects of the game lacking.

I think a roadmap for future DLC is less important than a roadmap for future changes. I'm disinclined to buy DLC in a similar format to R2R or Crossroads...

Amen to that. At this point I really do not care about new civilizations or wonders that much.
I really think they need to rework / deepen certain base game mechanics, before asking me to spend more money on egregiously overpriced DLC. Yet knowing myself, if I'd get the feeling that FXS really attempts to steer the ship around, I could see myself "investing" into the game's future by buying these DLC, since I want the devteam to thave the time and ressources to improve a game whose potential I clearly see.

In an ideal world, we'd get a lengthy video of them taking stock, laying out their perspective on what needs to change, what they are working on now and in the near future, showcasing what they got already cooking - even though parts of it may be WIP. And to summarize we'd get a tentative roadmap.
They really need to reconnect with their audience, at least for me this would go a long way. And in case they won't announce the changes I feel necessary ... well I'll be happy for those in the community who feel different about it and bid the game farewell without bitter feeling. Right now we are all kept in suspence. I'd like that to change.

 

[stealth_nsk]

1. Original roadmap was made to ensure fans that the game is still being worked on and improved. Now, there's no such big need for this.
2. Original roadmap had features which were considered "missing" from the game, but this list is almost over. Now the patches go into improvements phase, which is much harder to put into player-facing roadmap.
3. 2 promised features are still missed - hotseat and ability to end in any age with age-specific victories.
4. Layoffs probably caused change in plans.

I wouldn't expect roadmap soon, honestly.

 

[Lebo44]

Original roadmap was made to ensure fans that the game is still being worked on and improved. Now, there's no such big need for this.

For Victoria 3 and ARA the devs released a list of key features/changes they consider important in the future development of the game. Without specific timeline, just kind of a checklist.

I would like to see something similar for Civ 7. But FXS would need to improve the communication with the community first as it is very disappointing…

 

[Porry]

Ability to end in any age with age-specific victories.

This. I'm curious.
I hope the layoffs don't impact the development time of this improvement.