[LP] Leader Pass: Duel of the Devs - 4/12 Livestream Discussion (Hosted by Kevin Schultz)

[InsidiousMage]

Unfortunately, as noted, it wasn't a very good game overall. They need more than two players.

I don't think that would really solve the problem because it issue how do you make a live stream of a game with lots of dead time compelling. Like, no offense intended to anybody, but I don't find anyone on the Firaxis streams to be really compelling presenters. They are all good at their jobs but their jobs aren't presenting games on a live stream. Its a catch 22 with a lot of developer streams. You want the devs to be there to present the information authoritatively to the viewers but being a compelling presenter requires a different skill set than being a good video game dev. I mean, Its a hard thing to do generally.

 

[queenpea]

Right, and Ed even said as much. It was all just for fun. Unfortunately, as noted, it wasn't a very good game overall. They need more than two players.

For sure! It was all definitely just for fun. I guess it was just a bit short on the "fun" part.

 

[Kwami]

I don't think that would really solve the problem because it issue how do you make a live stream of a game with lots of dead time compelling. Like, no offense intended to anybody, but I don't find anyone on the Firaxis streams to be really compelling presenters. They are all good at their jobs but their jobs aren't presenting games on a live stream. Its a catch 22 with a lot of developer streams. You want the devs to be there to present the information authoritatively to the viewers but being a compelling presenter requires a different skill set than being a good video game dev. I mean, Its a hard thing to do generally.

I've seen some other multiplayer games that were fun to watch. When you have more players, you get more action and more talking. Both can be entertaining. I get that Ed and Carl are developers and not presenters, but I think it could still work. It'd be even more fun if they brought in one or two of the more notable YouTube/Twitch players to fill in for those AI players.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I get that Ed and Carl are developers and not presenters, but I think it could still work. It'd be even more fun if they brought in one or two of the more notable YouTube/Twitch players to fill in for those AI players.

I thought about that but then you would have the problem of building up rapport between people who don't know each other that well. I feel like a problem with the Firaxis live streams generally is that they tend to feel kind of stilted. PotatoMcWhiskey is like the single streamer whose videos I can watch but even his, lets call it performance, felt kind of off when he was on the Firaxis live stream. Its very rare that you can put a bunch of people together and have them interact in an interesting and compelling way on demand, as it were.

More generally, I think there is potential in Firaxis trying something new with their live streams. I feel like mixing in professional streamers isn't a bad idea but then you would have change the streams to work with it. Like, I think rotating streamers, letting them play the game, with friends or solo, and having the devs answer questions that were taken ahead of time could be an interesting format. Streamers already know how to be interesting on screen and then devs can answer questions, chat about the design, and even get into some deeper discussions with the streamer.

 

[Loerwyn]

I watched the stream and I mostly enjoyed it, but oh boy it was Amateur Hour writ large. I don't understand how Firaxis' Civ streams have become so poor in quality - technical issues, awkward pauses, transitions not working, etc., not to mention the camera focused on Kevin making it look like he was part of a Picnicface meme video from years ago, not to mention the hilariously awkward moment of the stream crew trying to hype up the staff in the cafeteria or where-ever they were sat - I wonder how much time they spent preparing and rehearsing things beforehand. Even when they started to put text on the stream in the latter half, it didn't look all that professional. I think it would have been better if it had been set up with some art showing who was playing as who, maybe a ticker with news/information/marketing from the Civ team, and the desks of Carl and Ed should have been set up so they were "facing off", which would have eliminated any possibility of seeing each other's screens. And for sure, the game settings (e.g. quick combat) should have been set-up and agreed upon before the game rather than a "oh do you have quick combat on?" moment.

I'm also really disappointed in some of the "fans" who spent the stream complaining about the stream in the chat, or spammed about the music bug. It wasn't the time nor the place for that, though I have to say kudos to Kevin for dealing with it as professionally as possible. I suppose most streams end up like that but it just kinda ruins the experience.

That said, I felt Carl and Ed were pretty good during the stream. They were entertaining and their rivalry was fun to watch. You could tell they were friends who were enjoying what they were doing, and making the best of it. It was a shame the match was conceded, and I was surprised Ed left himself in that position and did nothing to combat it, but he'd played his hand and it backfired. Carl had the upper hand for the majority, if not the entireity, of the match and I think he likely would have won anyway.

 

[Planktonic]

Oh brother. I can't believe I watched (most of) this. What a mess. I don't think Ed had much of a chance from the get-go.

1. Choice of civs was terrible. I know it was based on a vote- but do people really think Julius Caesar is a good or powerful leader? He's so boring and worthless (imo) I haven't even bothered to download him, and never will. Completely underpowered compared to Ludwig.
2. The map was terrible. Ed's terrain was horrible compared to Carl's. The extensive desert did nothing to make the gameplay more interesting.
3. The complete absence of other civs removed many, many possible interactions and developments that either player could have exploited. Again, terrible map.
4. I don't much like Rome in general, and the legion is a very overrated unit. It's feels somehow harder to get to iron working compared to horseback riding, and their relative immobility as an infantry unit interferes with the timing of a rush, even with a Great General. I don't play multiplayer but I've watched quite a few games and I can't remember seeing a Rome player mount a very successful legion rush. It may be manageable against the AI but is this something you can really use against a prepared human player?
5. The behavior of city states is so unpredictable. Occasionally they'll act as a functional arm of your military like Buenos Aires did here, but much more often they'll mill around engaging in random combat here and there if they happen to encounter a unit. Can't really fault Ed for ignoring the city state, since they usually don't take such an active interest. I guess that is OK from a gameplay perspective- if the suzerained city state automatically started attacking in a concerted fashion there would be no incentive to levy the troops. But the unpredictability does leave a sour taste sometimes.

One thing bothers me. Iirc, at the end Ed asks Carl, after being pointed to Buenos Aires' impending takeover of Lugdunum, "Did you levy them?" Everyone knows that if you levy a city state's troops they wear your jersey colors with a ticking clock icon, and Buenos Aires' troops were clearly still clad in brown. Was he just not paying attention? How could you make this mistake, even in passing? And he's attacking a civ with legions that have men-at-arms (I get it, he thinks people expect that of him), but his city is under attack and he's building a bath?

I dunno, tbh I get the sneaking suspicion that there are dozens of posters on this forum that could have easily trounced both of them ... (sorry, guys)

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Being a game designer does not neccesairly make you a good player.

I have over 3k hours, and I still play at Prince and lately below that because i don't enjoy the stress of having to min-max the game.

Also, I feel like people got their hopes up without valid cause for the stream, it always just felt like a "farewell" stream because there's absolutely no way we are getting any moe new Civ 6 content.

And they are not going to start an entire marketing campaign to promote the next game over a stream.

The low stream quality might be due to lower marekting costs or whatever for Civ 6 (skeleton crew), so it was probably more amateur than professional.

 

[borad]

When Ed finds out that Carl ranked the Roman invasion as third priority behind the barbarians and actually planning and building an empire… gotta be deflating. That volcano yield porn was brutal.

Don’t think I’ve seen such a brutal demolition by a City State since one of my Civ 5 games…

Needed a “Reveal All” at the end!

 

[Kupe Navigator]

I'm also really disappointed in some of the "fans" who spent the stream complaining about the stream in the chat, or spammed about the music bug. It wasn't the time nor the place for that

It wouldn't happened if people in support dealt it properly or if they fixed it ASAP- before the livestream.
I am having a great doubt that this "fix" is even coming this month or this year.

 

[Loerwyn]

It wouldn't happened if people in support dealt it properly or if they fixed it ASAP- before the livestream.
I am having a great doubt that this "fix" is even coming this month or this year.

It's a fairly minor issue and one that will need to be investigated, reproduced and fixed. The fix will then need to be tested to ensure it doesn't cause other issues. You get the idea. They're not just going to knock it out in an evening and push a hotfix without ensuring it deals with the issue. It may well be that the fix has been sorted in-studio and they're putting together a patch with other fixes/balances. After it had been acknowledged once on stream there was no need for it to be spammed in chat (yes, it was) or repeatedly mentioned. Same goes on here, I've only recently returned and read very few topics but a couple of forumgoers are somewhat militant about ensuring people know about it and demanding a fix. I'm not going to argue about (2K) Support being as useful as a bucket full of frog toes, because most major support companies are pretty poor, but that doesn't excuse the behaviour of fans and viewers.
In my honest and incredibly unhumble opinion.

But back to the stream itself.

The low stream quality might be due to lower marekting costs or whatever for Civ 6 (skeleton crew), so it was probably more amateur than professional.

I disagree, I don't think it's a cost or staffing issue. For some of my suggested improvements (e.g. the art, ticker, etc.) it may well have been, but the direction was shoddy and there seemed to be little substantive communication between the cameras and the producers, which meant we got shots changing at the wrong time or focusing on the wrong thing. This happened in the Leader Pass streams (which were technically for paid content!), and those from start to finish were wildly inconsistent. It may well be that they are using these streams as a platform to experiment and see what does/doesn't work for Civ VII/future streams, but they couldn't even get a number of the basics right for this stream. I am by no means a streamer or video producer, so I have very limited abilities in defining what was wrong or how things need to be improved, but Ye Olde Streams where it was Carl, Ed and other presenters sat alongside each other in those chairs seemed much more professional.

 

[Haig]

Well, not everything needs to be sharply edited glossy production like lots of youtube is nowadays.

I think the livestream had a DIY charm and I liked Kevin's hosting and the competitors' jokes and analyzes.

Now onwards to Civ 7 revelation!

 

[Pistol90]

Also dont understand what's problem about this .. they livestreams always been like this, awkward staring, low pic/sound quality etc ....

But, I would love them to continue in next-civ game ... it gives us a lot info, and good way to communicate with players.

Now, give us Civ7 reveal in next 3 months

 

[UWHabs]

My biggest problem with the stream was them taking it "seriously", so like they didn't talk about their strategies, discuss their thoughts in district placement, try to interact with the chat on feedback, etc... It made it a fairly sterile environment to watch what should have been fun, and just less exciting overall. I know it was just for fun, but they still could have had a little more fun with it.

I think also obviously the fact that neither of them met the other AI robbed them of any other possible interactions, so they may as well have just played a Duel size map. Also obviously you can see that Ed doesn't really play multiplayer games. Like, if Carl was playing like an AI, he wouldn't have built the encampment or probably even the Walls, and then Ed would have had a much easier rush. I don't play multiplayer myself, but even the little i know is that you have to know that humans are a much different player than the AI are.

But I don't think that's a big deal, really. Like, these aren't professional streamers. Just because you're a dev on a game doesn't necessarily mean you're the best player on it. And the fact of the matter is also that as Ed alluded to, he's probably only put in "thousands" of hours playing, vs Carl's "10s of thousands", given his former role as a QA. Like I bet there's a significant number of players on the boards here who have more hours of play-time than Ed does.

 

[AntSou]

Being a game designer does not necessarily make you a good player.

I assume Civ 6 design is fairly "decentralized" and Ed Beach is more in charge of the overall direction? For instance, I can't quite conceive Stegmaier being this bad at Scythe or Viticulture, probably because board games are more concise in scope.

It's a fairly minor issue

Sorry, but there's nothing minor about the music bug and players are perfectly within their right to be stressed about it. If people were spamming it in chat, isn't it possible not everyone saw the earlier acknowledgement?

The fix will then need to be tested to ensure it doesn't cause other issues. You get the idea. They're not just going to knock it out in an evening and push a hotfix without ensuring it deals with the issue. It may well be that the fix has been sorted in-studio and they're putting together a patch with other fixes/balances.

The science bug was a single digit typo which did not cause "other issues" yet it took them, what, a year? If the music bug takes a long time to fix, it doesn't automatically follow that it is a complex issue. It could be perfectly mundane and it might still take them a very long time to release a fix.

Neither the music or animations can be considered "minor" just because they don't have a direct impact on gameplay. It's a good thing they've openly acknowledge it though, that makes me hopeful of a fix sooner rather than later.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I disagree, I don't think it's a cost or staffing issue. For some of my suggested improvements (e.g. the art, ticker, etc.) it may well have been, but the direction was shoddy and there seemed to be little substantive communication between the cameras and the producers, which meant we got shots changing at the wrong time or focusing on the wrong thing. This happened in the Leader Pass streams (which were technically for paid content!), and those from start to finish were wildly inconsistent. It may well be that they are using these streams as a platform to experiment and see what does/doesn't work for Civ VII/future streams, but they couldn't even get a number of the basics right for this stream. I am by no means a streamer or video producer, so I have very limited abilities in defining what was wrong or how things need to be improved, but Ye Olde Streams where it was Carl, Ed and other presenters sat alongside each other in those chairs seemed much more professional.

Then I propose another offer:

Leader Pass was largely worked on by interns/new juniors who were learning and everyone, including the marketing staff, used it as a training ground.

 

[Xur]

Maybe 2K/Take-Two has some kind of weird performance contract with Firaxis, expecting limited amount of patches. It is certainly weird how Firaxis (doesn’t) patch their game.

 

[Loerwyn]

The poster competition is up, but it's US only.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1646910561396064257

 

[brewgod]

I was disappointed on many fronts with the two going against each other. I agree with many who have chimed in before me. How can a professional outfit like Firaxis come across so opposite. Complete low grade budget across the board. I can understand that Ed is camera shy and Carl does fine but if you are the host of a live show you should have your act together and conduct yourself professionally. Kevin completely dropped the ball as being a host. As if he was told walking into the office the morning of....get ready to host the live stream today with no idea what was going on.

Also taking questions which are irrelevant to the stream during game play is a waste of time and a distraction to those who are really interested in the battle. Yes they should have sat at a desk facing one another so they could not see their screens. Played on Deity since they are the actual people who designed the game. Have 4 AI Civs and make it very interesting where you have the AI coming after you from all different angles etc. Not even showing the other two AI civs was like UH really. So many things went wrong on this battle.

The set up of the game seemed to work yet the map should have been the next size up to fit more AI Civs like I said above. Ludwig was fine but did not look like Carl was plotting wonders down when he could have. I know he was busy killing barbs for a good part of the early game. Ed only settling one extra city was mind blowing to me. Carl was not much better. Almost everything in the battle against the two was completely not what I was looking towards watching. Almost a joke in some regards. The entire production side of the stream was poor which again coming from a legit well known game company was shocking.

I guess what I wanted to see was two powerful civs for Ed and Carl and 4 AI Civs on Deity with all the standard mods included so the game is exciting on each turn. With Ed would have had Victoria age of steam or to build a powerhouse economy and military etc. Ludwig is fine but sure there were better leaders he could have played. How Ed was basically bankrupt the entire game and had no city walls etc. etc. lots of fundamentals with early game from two of the top people in the country regarding Civ 6 at today's edition and updates.

Lastly I guess I also wanted to see a 4-5 hours true stream. When I saw 2 plus hours I was hopeful for a great show. With all the filler and talking and lack of producing the battle itself was like a hour. People on the forum here bring up budget well I really don't think it cost much to have a camera in the room set up behind each player and to go back and forth when it's there turn to make moves etc. Have Kevin then comment on how the game play is going off earshot of Ed and Carl. Kevin needed to make the game exciting for those watching. He really did not contribute anything to the stream.

Over all very dissatisfied and expected so much more from the people who actually created Civ 5 and Civ 6. One person mentioned how the streams have really slipped in quality from the NFP to the LP and I agree. Also one person I agree with before me mentioned...oh yeah by the way why don't we have common ground on game play...meaning I am playing quick battles and quick moves. Ed has all moves and battles at a snail's pace which slows down the entire stream. Ed and Carl do this on all LP streams too which annoys me a hundred percent because you could be explaining twice as much in your streams yet because your settings are to have all moves at normal speed and have all animations on for battle your 15 minute explanation of a new leader is cut in half with half the moves too. Have all movement on quick and quick battles and have 25 turns per new leader you want to discuss and show to us the fan base who buys the game. Don't understand the logic behind this. No communication beforehand on this stream and common ground on gameplay except Map and Size and number of AI Civs which were never shown which absolutely does not make sense to me. I don't see future streams getting any better.

That's my 2 Cents.

Brew God