I'm clicking the "retire" button on Civ VII

[Kev1916]

It's on post launch when they are more focused on trying to earn back people that they already lost, like me, instead of trying to improve the game for the people that are still there.

I'll not purchase Civ7, and therefore I'll not purchase any Civ7 DLC. Any effort they put in trying to make the game more to my taste now is wasted effort, as the changes required would basically be re-making the game from scratch which is just absurd.

They should instead focus on making the game better for the people that are playing Civ7 - the players that actually enjoy civ switching, eras, etc. Polish those ideas, make them the best possible version of them. So that these players might have incentive to buy the DLCs and have a positive experience with the game.

"
Instead of listening to my feedback, they should focus on their actual idea (if they even have on in the first place), so that the people that actually enjoy it might have the best possible version of it.

Not every game is for everyone - I just accepted that Civ7 isn't for me, and I don't want the developers try to make it for me, that would be a waste of their time."

Totally , and put "Civ" 7 into a side project pump out as many DLC's as they can to flog the horse, double down on the meta and console concept to keep the niche players happy

Think to the future , bring in a new team and move up a gear and try create a decent game for Civ players , if not Civ V and VI cant keep carrying the torch for ever

 

[ColtSeavers]

This is exactly why I think it's wasted effort to cater to folks like this. They will dismiss, ignore, or otherwise not value any changes the developers make that aren't the exact and precise overhaul they personally want.

Just wondering, what did I miss? What kind of significant efforts were made to win back disappointed players who didn’t like their approach from the get go?

 

[Siptah]

Just wondering, what did I miss? What kind of significant efforts were made to win back disappointed players who didn’t like their approach from the get go?

Dialing back the reset with the continuity mode? Allowing large and huge maps? These were obviously among the highest wished for changes by the community.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Dialing back the reset with the continuity mode? Allowing large and huge maps? These were obviously among the highest wished for changes by the community.

Well, allow large and huge maps is exactly what I was I referring to. I mean come on, you can not count that as an effort "to cater to folks", it is just the bare minimum of what could have been expected in the first place. The reset of the continuity mode also seems more like a balance fix to me. "Catering to folks" would be implenting a classic mode, but I have no indication that they are going into this direction, at least for now.

 

[Siptah]

Well, allow large and huge maps is exactly what I was I referring to. I mean come on, you can not count that as an effort "to cater to folks", it is just the bare minimum of what could have been expected in the first place. The reset of the continuity mode also seems more like a balance fix to me. "Catering to folks" would be implenting a classic mode, but I have no indication that they are going into this direction, at least for now.

I agree with you on most points, actually.

I don‘t think continuity makes for a good rebalance, because frankly, it throws any balance out the window. Hence, it seems an attempt to bring in/back players that don‘t like the mild reset that we had in vanilla. But it seems to have remained an attempt. It‘s certainly not a feature to please the people that liked the reset - except for keeping units in place, which seems widely loved (and I wish it would be added to regroup mode).

I also don’t see any hints on a classic mode, and I think this is because it will never happen. Many people throw around this word as if it would be easy to implement or an additional game mode on the side with little effort. But, as has been discussed on here quite a few times, a true classic mode requires to redesign the game from the ground up, as way too many mechanics are tied to ages. It would basically require civ 8, and not an expansion or patch. Maybe that‘s also why calls for a classic mode rarely come with suggestions how it could actually work - because as soon as you get concrete, you see the many hurdles that a classic mode needs to take. Simply saying „revert to previous iterations“ isn‘t a constructive suggestion here, as it would mean throwing out the majority of mechanics and content.

Edit: I don't know where you personally stand in this. Maybe what you envision as classic mode might happen – if it just means eliminate civ switching, but keep ages. That's something modders have started to do shortly after release already. Not too many mechanics are tied to actually switching, you "just" need to adapt the civs to the other ages in some way.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I also don’t see any hints on a classic mode, and I think this is because it will never happen. Many people throw around this word as if it would be easy to implement or an additional game mode on the side with little effort. But, as has been discussed on here quite a few times, a true classic mode requires to redesign the game from the ground up, as way too many mechanics are tied to ages. It would basically require civ 8, and not an expansion or patch. Maybe that‘s also why calls for a classic mode rarely come with suggestions how it could actually work - because as soon as you get concrete, you see the many hurdles that a classic mode needs to take. Simply saying „revert to previous iterations“ isn‘t a constructive suggestion here, as it would mean throwing out the majority of mechanics and content.

I'm not an expert on game developing either, but I really wonder, what is so complicated allowing people to let them play America starting in the Antiquity Age and let them choose, which Leader should be linked to which Civ? Of course, the respective bonuses are maybe then not "balanced" anymore, but I wouldn't care about that at all, especially if you play single player only. It would just be an option, people who care about Leader bonusses and such don't have to play this way, but I think it would be great alternative for players who just can't stand Catherine the Great leading some South American Civ in the Modern Age.

 

[Siptah]

I'm not an expert on game developing either, but I really wonder, what is so complicated allowing people to let them play America starting in the Antiquity Age and let them choose, which Leader should be linked to which Civ? Of course, the respective bonuses are maybe then not "balanced" anymore, but I wouldn't care about that at all, especially if you play single player only. It would just be an option, people who care about Leader bonusses and such don't have to play this way, but I think it would be great alternative for players who just can't stand Catherine the Great leading some South American Civ in the Modern Age.

I fully agree, actually. See my edit to my above post. If classic for you means just disable switching but keep ages, it might be in the cards. Or in mods at least, such as Classic civ (which currently misses modern civs though) or Enduring Empires (which disables switching, but doesn't allow to start with anything else than antiquity civs – but these get bonuses in all ages).

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't think continuity mose is designed to win back any people. I think it's pretty clear that it won't be enough. To me it looks like natural development of the game and response to the problems of previous mode. If we look at this forum history, we see a lot of complains about units being moved on age reset, how commanders could be used to gain advantage over AI, etc.

Yes, continuity is not very balanced yet and AI doesn't handle it well yet, but that's the problem to be solved in the next couple of patches.

 

[Gorbles]

Just wondering, what did I miss? What kind of significant efforts were made to win back disappointed players who didn’t like their approach from the get go?

Depends on what you mean by "approach"?

The general lack of polish and stability? The lacklustre UI? Age transitions? Civilisations as history in layers?

Becuse they've made a range of changes to all of these things. In particular, changes to make the original game on release more appealing and less different (for those who didn't want something as different as we got). Changes are by definition a way of winning back players.

"Catering to folks" would be implenting a classic mode, but I have no indication that they are going into this direction, at least for now.

That's exactly what I meant with my post. It's a "classic" mode or bust. Appreciate the supporting point.

It's also a very all-or-nothing mentality. Nothing counts unless it's specifially the thing you're expecting. Again, like I said in my original point. And again, not a judgement. I see where you're coming from. I disagree personally, but it's not really relevant. It's just a difference of opinion over how far a game can change (and how far a franchise could ever change), and it's up to the devs to thread that needle. One of us will probably end up disappointed. Hopefully not both of us! That'd be the worst outcome.

 

[Leucarum]

Building on what people are saying, I am curious how (and if) Firaxis are going to try to square the circle of keeping the game's vision intact with introducing changes which undermine central elements of it.

I do think the age system was worth pursuing as it tried to address the late-game tedium which was inherent in Civ games. But with unit regrouping optional, buildings maintaining adjacencies, more gold and influence carryover, persistent diplomacy... I think they're back at the same place they always have been where late game doesn't matter. Only now you've locked a lot of content to that portion of the game.

I think if we assume late game irrelevance is here to stay, you could at least make it less tedious by building on the anti-micromanagement features added in Civ7 which have been pretty successful...

And someone will mention making the AI better, but is that really Firaxis' priority? We're outliers here I suspect, with most people not amping up difficulty too high anyway...

As much as a classic mode is a lot of extra work, and I don't think Firaxis can likely juggle maintaining 2 distinct games in 1... I suspect given how Civ7's design is a tightly interconnected web, which will start to fall apart in multiple directions if you pull on threads, that we are heading in the direction of something which looks increasingly like a classic mode.

 

[Krikkit1]

Building on what people are saying, I am curious how (and if) Firaxis are going to try to square the circle of keeping the game's vision intact with introducing changes which undermine central elements of it.

I do think the age system was worth pursuing as it tried to address the late-game tedium which was inherent in Civ games. But with unit regrouping optional, buildings maintaining adjacencies, more gold and influence carryover, persistent diplomacy... I think they're back at the same place they always have been where late game doesn't matter. Only now you've locked a lot of content to that portion of the game.

Side note: building adjacency still is gone in continuity, just base yields are retained

I do think they can get the Age system to work by

1. Making the mechanics of later ages more challenging and more interesting
-Exploration age progression should be 5-10-10 not 5-10-20 so it is less rushed, then make the Legacies a bit more involved and interesting (mostly religion, but also getting some diplomatic Treasure Convoy options)
-Modern Victories should be made much more involved
The nice thing is the Age structure lets you balance each age mostly separately

2. Counter snowballing by making the AI "better"..ie more bonuses in later ages if the AI did not do well in the previous age (no impact to or from player performance)... so players don't get punished, but if the AIs aren't playing the game well then they get more bonuses to be proper opponents of the runaway player.

3. Further differentiating the Ages so that there are significant differences in how they work


Then they can improve Civ switching (increase sense of Identity) by

1. Let you choose your civ's "Name" (ie the Name+City list+Graphics* package) so you can start as the "Americans" in Antiquity (even if you have the Egyptian uniques because those are made for Antiquity gameplay)..and you can set the AIs to pick one "name" and stick with it.

2. Have a mode where you can get some attribute based uniques for your civ in its other ages.. so you can start as "Americans" in Antiquity and get the Antiquity Economic and Expansionist Civics and Traditions

3. Have the Graphics for buildings not change on Age Transition... if it was built in Roman style it remains that way until overbuilt (or a Narrative event)... even if I change to Mongol Graphics for Exploration

4. Have Narrative events for choosing to rename Settlements to your new City List or retaining their name. (including conquered ones)

 

[uppi]

I do think the age system was worth pursuing as it tried to address the late-game tedium which was inherent in Civ games. But with unit regrouping optional, buildings maintaining adjacencies, more gold and influence carryover, persistent diplomacy... I think they're back at the same place they always have been where late game doesn't matter. Only now you've locked a lot of content to that portion of the game.

I think having more continuity could be accomplished if they apply hefty price and yield inflation as well. Instead of +1 adjacency, Exploration age buildings would have +3 adjacency and Modern +9 or something. And then make things more expensive in those ages to match. So if you would keep your library making 8 science, you would still want to overbuild it with an observatory which makes 24 science. So the game would be more or less the same, but players would not see the displayed numbers go down as much. Of course that would require a complete rebalance of the later ages just to not hurt players' feelings.

More importantly, they need to lean more into rule changes between ages. Right now, the optimum algorithm for overbuilding is way too often: Search for old building of same type and overbuild it. If rules changed and the stock exchange had different adjacencies than the market, it might be more efficient to put it elsewhere. But then that tile would not have specialists - or it might because you thought of that and places a specialist in a less good place in Exploration in anticipation of Modern. That way smart play in later ages could overcome someone who has an advantage from earlier ages and is just coasting along.

 

[Leucarum]

Side note: building adjacency still is gone in continuity, just base yields are retained

I do think they can get the Age system to work by

1. Making the mechanics of later ages more challenging and more interesting
-Exploration age progression should be 5-10-10 not 5-10-20 so it is less rushed, then make the Legacies a bit more involved and interesting (mostly religion, but also getting some diplomatic Treasure Convoy options)
-Modern Victories should be made much more involved
The nice thing is the Age structure lets you balance each age mostly separately

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by 5-10-10 and 5-10-20

I think a big part of the problem is that antiquity got all the "core civ experience" legacy paths, while the other ages have various minigames like "religion whack-a-mole" or "move the treasure to your capital." Every civ version has had minigames, culture victory was the worst for it, but usually you could pick and choose which minigames or just ignore them.

3. Further differentiating the Ages so that there are significant differences in how they work

I think the problem is that they also need to make gameplay not repetitive, which probably means adding multiple routes to progress, and at some point those will need to be customizable or continuous through ages to keep players engaged. I think the direction of travel is in the opposite direction and that's probably for the best. Replayability is more important than distinctiveness.

2. Counter snowballing by making the AI "better"..ie more bonuses in later ages if the AI did not do well in the previous age (no impact to or from player performance)... so players don't get punished, but if the AIs aren't playing the game well then they get more bonuses to be proper opponents of the runaway player.

We've been asking for this for... How long? Either (most likely) since Civ is the gateway drug of 4X games, challenging AI is less of a priority when you have lots of new or rookie players; or Firaxis have tried and failed. Either way, I have 0 confidence in the likelihood of this.

Then they can improve Civ switching (increase sense of Identity) by

1. Let you choose your civ's "Name" (ie the Name+City list+Graphics* package) so you can start as the "Americans" in Antiquity (even if you have the Egyptian uniques because those are made for Antiquity gameplay)..and you can set the AIs to pick one "name" and stick with it.

2. Have a mode where you can get some attribute based uniques for your civ in its other ages.. so you can start as "Americans" in Antiquity and get the Antiquity Economic and Expansionist Civics and Traditions

3. Have the Graphics for buildings not change on Age Transition... if it was built in Roman style it remains that way until overbuilt (or a Narrative event)... even if I change to Mongol Graphics for Exploration

4. Have Narrative events for choosing to rename Settlements to your new City List or retaining their name. (including conquered ones)

I'd be happy if we can continue civs from a previous age. Enduring Empires made a good first stab at how to handle it. I do think making older civs playable earlier is tough but letting you transcend would be HUGE.

 

[Krikkit1]

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by 5-10-10 and 5-10-20

The age progression from the legacy path Milestones...
Antiquity (5-5-10) means that when all are finished you end up with a 120 turn age (assuming no Future Tech/civic/ eliminations, etc.)

Exploration (5-10-20) means that when all are finished you end up with a 60 turn age (assuming no Future Tech/civic/ eliminations, etc.)

if it was 5-10-10 Exploration would be a 100 turn age

 

[Leucarum]

The age progression from the legacy path Milestones...
Antiquity (5-5-10) means that when all are finished you end up with a 120 turn age (assuming no Future Tech/civic/ eliminations, etc.)

Exploration (5-10-20) means that when all are finished you end up with a 60 turn age (assuming no Future Tech/civic/ eliminations, etc.)

if it was 5-10-10 Exploration would be a 100 turn age

I see. I think just as big a problem is that exploration legacy paths (with the exception of economic) are so easy that they're automatic. And economic can be easy too but it's mostly RNG.

Ultimately I think Antiquity has the best legacy paths and the other ages are struggling to match them.

 

[ColtSeavers]

That's exactly what I meant with my post. It's a "classic" mode or bust. Appreciate the supporting point.

It's also a very all-or-nothing mentality. Nothing counts unless it's specifially the thing you're expecting. Again, like I said in my original point. And again, not a judgement. I see where you're coming from. I disagree personally, but it's not really relevant. It's just a difference of opinion over how far a game can change (and how far a franchise could ever change), and it's up to the devs to thread that needle. One of us will probably end up disappointed. Hopefully not both of us! That'd be the worst outcome.

Not sure what’s so “all or nothing” about a simple option to play existing Civs in each age you like and continue using them across all ages. As I mentioned before, I wouldn’t care if the Civs’ bonuses are “balanced” or not. Pretty sure a Junior Developer could implement that within a few days. Again, it’s just an option. Nothing would be taken away from you or others who like Civ switching!

But at the end of the day, I agree with you that this is very unlikely to happen. My prediction is they’ll more or less do what you're asking for, release some balance and UI patches, and hope that’s enough to satisfy a large portion of their customers. Not sure if that will work out for them in the long run though. Currently, less than 50% of Steam players are happy with the game, even after all these months of bug fixing.

Let’s see how the first major DLC is received, and whether the remaining 50% of current buyers who like the game will be enough to generate the sales needed to justify further development.

 

[Gorbles]

Not sure what’s so “all or nothing” about a simple option to play existing Civs in each age you like and continue using them across all ages.

A lot of people here use "classic" mode to mean something rather specific / nuclear. Maybe you have a different interpretation, but the way it seems to be being used is "take all transitions and civ switching out of the game". In some cases it means remove Ages, too. Take the game back to VI with the incremental upgrades that VII brings aside from that (people say "but X is new", when in fact the ethos of 33 / 33 / 33 means a lot of the additions actually fall under 33% changed).

That's an all-or-nothing approach. If you have a different thing in mind, apologies for getting wires crossed.

Pretty sure a Junior Developer could implement that within a few days.

If that was the case, truly, I believe it would've happened already. There have been a bunch of threads over the past however long that explain the ways these mechanics tie to each other and how unpacking them causes issues. If you personally don't care about balance, that's just your take (and it's not the only issue). Any option they implement has to be workable for all players who'd be interested in such a mode.

But at the end of the day, I agree with you that this is very unlikely to happen. My prediction is they’ll more or less do what you're asking for, release some balance and UI patches, and hope that’s enough to satisfy a large portion of their customers.

I think they've already gone further than that, which brings us back full-circle to undervaluing changes that you don't personally value. Tautologically Like I said earlier, I get it. I'm not really fussed by stuff they put in I won't use either. But that doesn't negate the time and effort that has gone into making them happen.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I agree with you on most points, actually.

I don‘t think continuity makes for a good rebalance, because frankly, it throws any balance out the window. Hence, it seems an attempt to bring in/back players that don‘t like the mild reset that we had in vanilla. But it seems to have remained an attempt. It‘s certainly not a feature to please the people that liked the reset - except for keeping units in place, which seems widely loved (and I wish it would be added to regroup mode).

I also don’t see any hints on a classic mode, and I think this is because it will never happen. Many people throw around this word as if it would be easy to implement or an additional game mode on the side with little effort. But, as has been discussed on here quite a few times, a true classic mode requires to redesign the game from the ground up, as way too many mechanics are tied to ages. It would basically require civ 8, and not an expansion or patch. Maybe that‘s also why calls for a classic mode rarely come with suggestions how it could actually work - because as soon as you get concrete, you see the many hurdles that a classic mode needs to take. Simply saying „revert to previous iterations“ isn‘t a constructive suggestion here, as it would mean throwing out the majority of mechanics and content.

Edit: I don't know where you personally stand in this. Maybe what you envision as classic mode might happen – if it just means eliminate civ switching, but keep ages. That's something modders have started to do shortly after release already. Not too many mechanics are tied to actually switching, you "just" need to adapt the civs to the other ages in some way.

A true classic mode would basically be the ability to play any civ from the start and not have an era reset

The former is probably a goddamn flag in a database, and the latter is making antiquity never end and having all tech researchable (in their proper sequence) in that era

Random modders tinkering in their spare time are already most of the way there.

This *should* be trivial to accomplish.

 

[Siptah]

A true classic mode would basically be the ability to play any civ from the start and not have an era reset

The former is probably a goddamn flag in a database, and the latter is making antiquity never end and having all tech researchable (in their proper sequence) in that era

Random modders tinkering in their spare time are already most of the way there.

This *should* be trivial to accomplish.

Moving all techs to antiquity doesn‘t really solve anything. Eras are a core concept that is very difficult to take out. If we just take the tech tree as in your example, what happens with all the bonuses from tech masteries that go obsolete at era change? When do buildings and units go obsolete - do you make up a new system for building and units replacing each other? How and when do resources change? Many of the things changing with eras (e.g., connection distances) need to be tied to a tech, mastery, or similar. The tech tree alone comes with quite a long list of things that need to be adapted, and that's not even touching the more difficult related overbuilding mechanic.

There is a mod that tackles eras? I‘m not aware of anything like that. Could you point me towards it?

 

[Leucarum]

Even with a classic mode I don't eras are going anywhere. To some extent they have always been in the game, just not as mechanically important. It looks like Firaxis are going to continue to downplay them and make them less and less important. But unless a major expansion really focusses them down they are here to stay, and I suspect a classic mode would just remove much of their distinctions, and almost totally smooth out transitions. At some point they get downgraded enough that they are functionally irrelevant.

For Civ switching, mods like enduring empires have shown that we can do something about it even with the current modding tools. A system whereby you can choose to keep playing your civ, but get access to some mechanically appropriate civics/traditiions is I suspect a no-brainer. Firaxis' seal of approval on a solution would go a long way here as there'a a lot of ways you could do it. Playing Civs in previous eras feels tougher...

I don't think the crisis mode is going to last. It already being optional at launch suggests Firaxis did not have much confidence in the feature. With a large chunk of the audience not using it, and it being tied to a system that is disliked, I think that's got to be a low priority to fix too...

And given that leaders and civs no longer have a 1-1 correspondence, plus the costs for making new models, I suspect leader/civ mixing and matching is here to stay.

So a classical mode for me would be a set of options to reduce the impact of ages to a very low level, crises turned off, and the ability to continue to play a civ out of era with some benefits to compensate. I doubt it would satisfy everyone, but I'd take that and run with it. I even hope all the options are toggleable as I'd personally continue to play with full-fat eras.