I know it's too early to tell but I think Humankind's culture shift mechanic may've been the better implemented method

[Arcaian]

As long as I know, the Founder unit establish the Capital and it starts as a City.

I think Boris' point there was that the City vs Town distinction could be used to give rise to an interesting pre-city phase where you have a town but no cities, explore the map a little bit while making some decisions in your proto-city (town), and then move on to the typical start we've had in Civ. It's an interesting idea!

 

[Tanel]

The Abbasids had the Augustus portrait to indicate they were a historical choice, yet they had a big lock on them, so not unlocked by Augustus (nor by Rome).

I think that just means something like Augustus would be a recommended match with Abbasids (maybe because they are Cultural & Expansionist as well?) but you would have to take a different path to unlock them.

 

[Evolena]

I still feel like "historical choice" may be stretching what we are actually getting. I think each leader will have one historical choice, and perhaps another two "bendy" choices that aren't really historical but the next-closest civs (probably geographically, territorially, or culturally) just to have three options encouraged by the leader.

I use "historical choice" as it is used in-game, without any judgement: the civ is tagged with the leader portrait and there is a "Historcial Choice!" phrase.

I think that just means something like Augustus would be a recommended match with Abbasids (maybe because they are Cultural & Expansionist as well?) but you would have to take a different path to unlock them.

Exactly my point, I was answering to the affirmation that he unlocked them. But I think it's more a geographical proximity than related to attributes (even though they have Cultural in common).

 

[UWHabs]

Seeing your starting position and then selecting your Civ is something I started suggesting back in Civ V days - it would alleviate some of the start positions that are an abomination for the Civ you thought you were playing - like Civ VI Mali or Nubia without a desert tile within 8 tiles of the starting position, or a British or Norse start far, far away from any coast.

And one of the things that has always bothered me about Civ's start - and to only a slightly lesser extent, Humankind, ARA, and Millenia's starts - is that they all assume that nothing important happens before you found your first City. As @Zaarin pointed out, even Humankind's 'Neolithic start' didn't allow you to do more than wander the map, get a few points for a single faster Tech, and pick a Civ and found a city as soon as possible.

And since Civ VII starts you with a first unit specialized City Founder, I don't see much sign that it will be any different; especially since they seem to have designed the smaller Towns strictly as City-Feeders rather than potential Proto-Cities that could be started earlier.

I think having you pick a civ after seeing the start is interesting, but at the same time, it would probably plunk you down on "good" starting locations too much, so you wouldn't get the Canada/Russia tundra starts as much, for example.

I think ideally I'd love like a cheat function like the reroll map function, where once it plonks you down on your starting spot, you can just cheat and change what civ you want to play. So if I select Canada and get popped down in a jungle, I could be like "oh I like the map, but can I just be Brazil instead please?". And maybe under the covers if there was another Brasil already selected, it would just silently swap them out for another civ that relatively matched their starting spawn location.

 

[Evolena]

The logic of starting biases is reversed this time, instead of being placed somewhere on the map matching your biases, now the map around your starting location will be generated according to your biases.

 

[RedCourtJester]

The logic of starting biases is reversed this time, instead of being placed somewhere on the map matching your biases, now the map around your starting location will be generated according to your biases.

Depending on the variety of antiquity civ biases/uniques, I could still see some value in choosing a leader and being encouraged to select your civ after you've settled, in the event one civ has more potential than the other.

I do think that Humankind effectively solved the re-roll problem with the "nomad" phase, and it's one I would hope Civ considered in the transition to the era system.

 

[Zaarin]

I do think that Humankind effectively solved the re-roll problem with the "nomad" phase,

The problem is that hitting the reload button and watching the loading screen for 30 seconds is still shorter and less boring than HK's neolithic phase so I wouldn't say they solved the problem, just created a different one.

 

[RedCourtJester]

The problem is that hitting the reload button and watching the loading screen for 30 seconds is still shorter and less boring than HK's neolithic phase so I wouldn't say they solved the problem, just created a different one.

I'm talking about trying to redefine game-starts so that you feel confident enough to start with any map. Not about whether the neolithic phase is boring (ideally it isn't), but that you don't need to keep going into a game with a specific antiquity civ in mind--you can pivot.

Would alleviate a good chunk of rerolls if players were encouraged to adopt that mentality for every game except where they had a specific continuity planned.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm talking about trying to redefine game-starts so that you feel confident enough to start with any map. Not about whether the neolithic phase is boring (ideally it isn't), but that you don't need to keep going into a game with a specific antiquity civ in mind--you can pivot.

Would alleviate a good chunk of rerolls if players were encouraged to adopt that mentality for every game except where they had a specific continuity planned.

I don't think I'd want this as the default setup, but it does sound like it could be interesting as an option with the right development and approach.

 

[GeneralZift]

If you look at the Dev Diary about ages, one of the main reasons to add that system is to combat the reasons players most often don't finish their games

What always gets me about this sentiment, is that, I don't relate at all... I don't think the game has too much snowballing - only that the AI sucks at the game so you end up snowballing a win.
Multiplayer games in my experience (Civ5 is my online experience) don't have the issue, but Singleplayer games do.
Soft resets sound more irritating instead of a solution.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I don't think I'd want this as the default setup, but it does sound like it could be interesting as an option with the right development and approach.

Will be curious. Either way, I do agree with you that I hope a neolithic phase will at least be made interesting if we have one.

For me, personally, I would just like a neolithic map with bunches of animals on it that you can go around and feed and pet. Like in Okami.

And then I'd never leave that phase.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I do think that Humankind effectively solved the re-roll problem with the "nomad" phase, and it's one I would hope Civ considered in the transition to the era system.

Actually no. While it provided much bigger variety of your exact starting position, you still often could find yourself cornered by your neighbor due to region-based map.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Will be curious. Either way, I do agree with you that I hope a neolithic phase will at least be made interesting if we have one.

For me, personally, I would just like a neolithic map with bunches of animals on it that you can go around and feed and pet. Like in Okami.

And then I'd never leave that phase.

My own solution for the last 2 years or so of playing Civ VI was to use a specific set of Mods to approximate a 'Neolithic' or wandering start:

A Mod that provides a wider field of view at start , so you can see about twice as far over the map.

A Mod that provides "faster starting Settlers" so your settler, on the first turn, can move about 2 - 3 times further to a better Start Position.

It ain't perfect, but it allows me, among other things, to move the Settler to the coast when my Norse Civ starts 6 tiles inland, as it seems to be programmed to do normally, and to move my Mali Settler from the Tundra where it started to the desert tiles 5 tiles to the south where it should have started.

Something as simple as a single Longer Distance Move for the initial Settler/Capital Founder would go a long way towards improving the Start options. Frankly, I wouldn't even try to play Civ VI any more without it.

 

[RedCourtJester]

My own solution for the last 2 years or so of playing Civ VI was to use a specific set of Mods to approximate a 'Neolithic' or wandering start:

A Mod that provides a wider field of view at start , so you can see about twice as far over the map.

A Mod that provides "faster starting Settlers" so your settler, on the first turn, can move about 2 - 3 times further to a better Start Position.

It ain't perfect, but it allows me, among other things, to move the Settler to the coast when my Norse Civ starts 6 tiles inland, as it seems to be programmed to do normally, and to move my Mali Settler from the Tundra where it started to the desert tiles 5 tiles to the south where it should have started.

Something as simple as a single Longer Distance Move for the initial Settler/Capital Founder would go a long way towards improving the Start options. Frankly, I wouldn't even try to play Civ VI any more without it.

The only balancing concern I could see with that would be a propensity for civs to poach each other's starting territory more often.

But if it were unilaterally just a player-feature (and the AI couldn't move as fast), it would work very well in solo play.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Also, on a related note, one thing I have been observing in the industry is a general propensity for games to be pulling away from "hardcore" time-consuming gameplay and more toward "jump in and play" style games that are more casual-friendly: games which require little setup/grinding to get to satisfying end-game content, and structured more so that they can be played in short 15-30 minute spurts. I think this is a matter of recognizing that the big juggernauts of the industry are now pick-up-and-play MP games like Fortnite, Overwatch, Destiny, Death by Daylight, etc. etc., and that those just naturally pull in more consumers, make more profit, and win the attention war. Profitability in the modern gaming industry is all about the casual market, which is a far larger pool of money to draw from than niche "challenge-based" gameplay, whether the older gamer crowd likes that or not.

With one facet, I've seen MMOs like FFXIV and GW2 leaning more and more toward "short-cuts" where there used to be a lot of grinding to earn things like max class levels and mounts, vastly oversimplifying gearing and combat to make it harder for new/casual players to fail in group content, and reducing longer "raid-style" instanced content into shorter trials/strikes that can be played in 15-30 minutes. And with another facet, I've even seen things like longer adventure games like Zelda, which used to be built around longer 7-10 act structures, broken down into even smaller "bite-size" content ala BotW/TotK shrines/korok puzzles (not to mention, in the same vein as oversimplification, near total death-proofing from an easily exploitable food system). In yet another facet, traditional JRPGs have been moving further and further away from turn-based combat to the point that now FFVII and FFXVI are almost pure action-combat games. I'm sure we can see similar "cutting out of time-wasting" and "shortening of play loops" in other genres, and while it isn't universal (indie games do still exist), I see it taking over specifically big AAA tentpole games that are expected to turn a profit.

(Also, on a less-related note, a huge trend away from mechanical complexity and toward aesthetic variation/choice and self-expression. So many games now (FFXIV/GW2, Fortnite, Smite, etc.) are skin-based self-expression games that more and more tenuously have a "gameplay genre" sustaining them. And I do have a legitimate curiosity/concern as to whether Civ VII will lean more toward more aesthetically varied but mechanically less differentiated civs in this vein. "Build something you believe in" feels very "dress up your avatar" rhetoric to me, in civ terms.)

And I think we are seeing some things in Civ VII that are indicating as much. The ability to play just a single era will allow players to play a "full game" in a third of the time if they wish. The streamlining of builders, trader roads, and amenities/pop distribution will make the average turn much shorter. Things like that. So, to prepare some traditionalists, I would not be surprised if we see more things like this as the game is revealed. The truncation of gameplay loops and removal of granularity/detail/options. I don't think the game will suffer much for it, so far changes seem to be judicious. But the industry is changing, and inevitably Civ would have to as well to keep up. I'm sure there will be ways for traditional players to "beef out" their experiences in a longer marathon format, but I am not expecting the game to default to that.

 

[gdr_willter]

The biggest problem of the idea is that it's not a newbie friendly way. Most of newbie players don't understand what civ will be a good choice for the starting environment they faced. The traditional way - just choose the civ & leader to play and get an automatically generated map - is easier to them.

 

[RedCourtJester]

The biggest problem of the idea is that it's not a newbie friendly way. Most of newbie players don't understand what civ will be a good choice for the starting environment they faced. The traditional way - just choose the civ & leader to play and get an automatically generated map - is easier to them.

It seems that way at first blush, yes.

But how much re-rolling was needed to make that specific leader/civ work with the old model? How long did you have to play before that leader's uniques came online? How much longer did you have to play through a rote modern era before you could consider the game "finished?"

I don't have an absolute answer to that, but not all design changes exist in a vacuum, they could implicate many other aspects of the game.

 

[Kev1916]

Also, on a related note, one thing I have been observing in the industry is a general propensity for games to be pulling away from "hardcore" time-consuming gameplay and more toward "jump in and play" style games that are more casual-friendly: games which require little setup/grinding to get to satisfying end-game content, and structured more so that they can be played in short 15-30 minute spurts. I think this is a matter of recognizing that the big juggernauts of the industry are now pick-up-and-play MP games like Fortnite, Overwatch, Destiny, Death by Daylight, etc. etc., and that those just naturally pull in more consumers, make more profit, and win the attention war. Profitability in the modern gaming industry is all about the casual market, which is a far larger pool of money to draw from than niche "challenge-based" gameplay, whether the older gamer crowd likes that or not.

With one facet, I've seen MMOs like FFXIV and GW2 leaning more and more toward "short-cuts" where there used to be a lot of grinding to earn things like max class levels and mounts, vastly oversimplifying gearing and combat to make it harder for new/casual players to fail in group content, and reducing longer "raid-style" instanced content into shorter trials/strikes that can be played in 15-30 minutes. And with another facet, I've even seen things like longer adventure games like Zelda, which used to be built around longer 7-10 act structures, broken down into even smaller "bite-size" content ala BotW/TotK shrines/korok puzzles (not to mention, in the same vein as oversimplification, near total death-proofing from an easily exploitable food system). In yet another facet, traditional JRPGs have been moving further and further away from turn-based combat to the point that now FFVII and FFXVI are almost pure action-combat games. I'm sure we can see similar "cutting out of time-wasting" and "shortening of play loops" in other genres, and while it isn't universal (indie games do still exist), I see it taking over specifically big AAA tentpole games that are expected to turn a profit.

And I think we are seeing some things in Civ VII that are indicating as much. The ability to play just a single era will allow players to play a "full game" in a third of the time if they wish. The streamlining of builders, trader roads, and amenities/pop distribution will make the average turn much shorter. Things like that. So, to prepare some traditionalists, I would not be surprised if we see more things like this as the game is revealed. The truncation of gameplay loops and removal of granularity/detail/options. I don't think the game will suffer much for it, so far changes seem to be judicious. But the industry is changing, and inevitably Civ would have to as well to keep up. I'm sure there will be ways for traditional players to "beef out" their experiences in a longer marathon format, but I am not expecting the game to default to that.

It may be once again mods that will have to come to the rescue , a smaller less clicks ( to fit the console market ) will suit the playstation/xbox market quite well.
Also be interesting how much the meta will bring to casual players

 

[gdr_willter]

But how much re-rolling was needed to make that specific leader/civ work with the old model? How long did you have to play before that leader's uniques came online? How much longer did you have to play through a rote modern era before you could consider the game "finished?"

First at all, I'm not a hard restarter but who try to accept the map I have.

Secondly, because this is a Civ 7 thread, I think we shoud talk about it on the new systems. We have the new map generator which give us an optimized start point. And we can even switch the civ when we enter the new Age.

I truly consider this system base will give us reasonable map and allow us to accept it and try further gameplay.

 

[RedCourtJester]

It may be once again mods that will have to come to the rescue , a smaller less clicks ( to fit the console market ) will suit the playstation/xbox market quite well.
Also be interesting how much the meta will bring to casual players

Oh yes, this too, I totally forgot to mention that. There are some games, like GW2, that I think are just buying time until a new iteration can come out that is designed around gamepads. FFXIV has also been heavily simplifying combat and menus to be gamepad compatible. We live in the gamepad era; every franchise that used to be designed around PC gaming is feeling the pressure to transition fully to gamepad-compatible play. There is no way Civ VII has not been feeling this pressure as well, and since we know it is planned for console launches, we can expect, as you said, mouse-based clickiness and hotkey menus, to be drastically reduced.

I think there is definitely a chance Civ VII could become mainstream at this rate. And I would wholly welcome it; my investment in Civ has always been about the level of cultural awareness it can bring to consumer markets (a role which, imo, it has always been industry-leader in as a balancing of accessibility versus breadth/depth), and only mildly about the gameplay itself.

First at all, I'm not a hard restarter but who try to accept the map I have.

Secondly, because this is a Civ 7 thread, I think we shoud talk about it on the new systems. We have the new map generator which give us an optimized start point. And we can even switch the civ when we enter the new Age.

I truly consider this system base will give us reasonable map and allow us to accept it and try further gameplay.

I agree, we do see some new systems coming forth and that may not totally obviate the old method of starting. Hence why I'm not sure there is a clear answer about this particular issue yet. But I do think that, if "streamlining" and "casual-friendlying" the game has been at the forefront of VII's development, we may see some more interesting changes to game-start features. Might make for some exciting stuff.