Yeah, I hate how IV - VI killed off Obi Wan and Yoda. They were so great as characters in I - III!
Player stats, sales, and reception discussion
- Thread starter protocol7
- Start date
0urBall
Warlord
Civ?
Sorry, there was a bit of a Star Wars tangent going on (in service to a greater point about what parts of a playerbase to cater to that I don't really think is a predictable affair either way). I like Star Wars.
stealth_nsk
Deity
Yep, that's the issue. This approach works with predominantly Multiplayer games. Civ games always had SP-focused diplomacy, but Civ7 is the first game to have diplomacy working equally well in both SP and MP. Having MP-focused diplomacy (including minimal diplomacy implementation) would be a disaster.
A big theme of this thread is how civ going away from old fans causes its problems. If it would had diplomacy, which doesn't work well in SP, the situation would be many times worse as most of old fans play SP.
protocol7
Prince
I don’t like games with diplomacy where the game systems calculate what I’m supposed to think for me. I’m perfectly capable of deciding my own opinion of the other leaders, thanks, even if they use espionage or whatever. I don’t need the game to keep track of a score of my own opinion and limit what I can do based on it.
stealth_nsk
Deity
It's not your opinion it's opinion of your people
On pure mechanical note, I don't know how to implement diplomacy which should work in both MP and SP without it. SP diplomacy requires having some relationship tracker and if only AIs will have it, the diplomacy will work differently for SP and MP, like it was in all previous Civ games, where diplomacy was very lacking.
protocol7
Prince
My people aren’t playing the game, I am. I only play SP so it’s unfortunate if they truly decided to take away my agency in SP diplomacy so it could work the same as MP. What’s next, a strategy score that limits what buildings or units I can build based on the “will of my people”?
I think a relationship system is necessary for civ. As much as I like games that don‘t have it for MP, and get really whacky with it (e.g., in Junta or AoE2 regicide), I like the stances and numbers for SP. It happened maybe 10 times in way over a 1000 hours of EU4 that I wasn‘t able to ally someone because my country did not like them. And there are ways to deal with that. I don’t see why civ couldn‘t do similar. But with agendas and limited ways to influence diplo aside from endeavors…
Last edited:
Pretty sure you're describing "production".
I'm not being tongue-in-cheek here. The discussion here seems to be over how strongly to codify a particular resource.
On one side you have "less rules". On the other, "more rules". There are pros and cons to both ends of the spectrum. There's an intersection not just of preference, but games design; how you want the feature to literally work.
I don't have any smart ideas here. Diplomacy has long had issues in Civ. so I don't mind them mixing it up until they get something that feels substantially better than what came before.
protocol7
Prince
What per strategy score is there that limits which strategies I can spend my production on based on what strategy the game thinks I (or my people) are pursuing? Sorry I’m not quite following.
Do you mean what techs I’ve researched? Because that’s something I feel the game gives me agency over selecting. I wouldn’t like it either if “my people” picked techs or which buildings to build for me (but I’ve never seen that happen so not sure what you’re referring to).
Do you mean what techs I’ve researched? Because that’s something I feel the game gives me agency over selecting. I wouldn’t like it either if “my people” picked techs or which buildings to build for me (but I’ve never seen that happen so not sure what you’re referring to).
Last edited:
The problem is Diplomacy requires 2 players, unlike production, technology, etc.
The other problem is true open diplomacy (where any two players can exchange anything without costs) is an area AI is terrible at.
Which means that Diplomacy in previous civ games was like "building the other player"
In civ 7. Both players (human and AI) get to use Diplomacy to "build the other player" into what they want.
... ie you both build "the Relationship"..
but the Relationship doesn't determine what the AI or Human wants... instead the Relationship limits what you can do.
I mean literally, Production. It's a resource that dictates the ability of your people to either construct buildings or train units. It is a constant value that each city generates that dictates how fast or slow any given thing can be built.
Maybe this sounds too abstract. I'm not trying to be. I'm saying this is a modifying of an attraction as a numerical value that effectively functions as a resource (like Science or Culture).
In turn, Science and Culture gate techs and civics (and techs and civics themselves dictates what other techs and civil you can build).
Think of diplomacy modifiers as a more reactive tech tree. I'm not sure this will help you like it (again, preference, and preference is valid). But I think we need to think more about games design as a discipline instead of making it a fight between SP and MP players (as an SP player with next to no interest in MP myself).
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2011
- Messages
- 2,085
It would appear that last week's numbers from the patch were sustained for all of a week based on the numbers so far this week. We're down about 2,000 on this time last week, pretty much back to where we were pre patch, and heading back towards our first sub 10,000 player peak day.
ThunderLizard2
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 301
Steamcharts today:
Civ VII 10,064
Civ VI 25,686
CI V 14,380
Civ IVBTS 1,641
Civ VII 10,064
Civ VI 25,686
CI V 14,380
Civ IVBTS 1,641
MutilationWave
IDDQD
Ugh. That hurts.
I really like the patch, I thought it would have some staying power. They need another patch pronto. I'm afraid of Take Two/2K pulling funding. I don't think they're advertising at all.
After the bad press on release, there's no way incremental patches are going to change things. You just cant drum up enough articles and word of mouth and eyeballs from "Patch 1.3!!!" to get people who aren't following the game to shell out. The only way to turn things around is with a major expansion launch
GeneralZift
Professional
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2019
- Messages
- 951
It's not your opinion it's opinion of your people
On pure mechanical note, I don't know how to implement diplomacy which should work in both MP and SP without it. SP diplomacy requires having some relationship tracker and if only AIs will have it, the diplomacy will work differently for SP and MP, like it was in all previous Civ games, where diplomacy was very lacking.
I do, I would just have fair amount of 'human' options available and then code the AI to fake human-like responses based on their personality.
For example, Aggressive leaders will decline peaceful offers and trades whereas Passive-Aggressive (Slimy) leaders will accept them on a surface level then break them down the line.
Characters become more likely to go back on their word if their situation declines heavily since the offer began. Also if the political situation changes.
Characters will be more likely to stick to their word if they are afraid of your military or if they have a high "honour" personality score.
When a character OR player breaks their word, it reduces an internal invisible value for how reliable they are in the eyes of other characters. This would be similar to how Humans would be less likely to trust you if they see you break deals a lot.
The important part is keeping it vague because diplomacy is vague by default. It is NOT fun to do Diplomacy if you already know how everyone will behave in every situation forever.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2011
- Messages
- 2,085
I think what this says to me is chiefly that the gameplay loop isn't as fundamentally captivating as previous versions. It just isn't hooking people in the same way as previous versions yet. I think there's more than patching required to fix that. It says fundamental rework a la Stellaris to me.
MutilationWave
IDDQD
I'd love to see it but I don't think it's in the cards. Maybe since 2k is about to make a mint on GTA6, Firaxis can maybe beg enough to do something like that. The opposite could happen though and that's Civ being completely ignored compared to the GTA behemoth.
I love the game. If they had just polished the UI, and told the player how to play, things could be completely different. It's too late for that now. My first game took forever because I was spending twice as much time looking up how to play as I was actually playing, and most people aren't going to do that. I don't blame them.
I swear if 7 bites the dust and they don't release the code out of greed, I'm going to be furious. Then I will probably buy 8 at launch because I'm a junky.
Slapping more content or features onto a product that most people already dislike isn’t a winning formula. The problem lies with the core gameplay, not a lack of content. They need to fix the standard game before releasing any DLC. I can’t remember ever buying DLC for a game I didn’t like - and no DLC has ever convinced me to buy a game I wasn’t already interested in.
Similar threads
