Askia Muhammad
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2019
- Messages
- 323
I think right now the devs believe moving said deck chairs is all that needs to be done to save the game. That’s just my two cents.
Askia Muhammad
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2019
- Messages
- 323
Ignore me - I read the notes rapidly and confused them announcing they will be coming with them releasing
GeneralZift
Professional
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2019
- Messages
- 1,187
If you position the deck chairs in a particular way, I suppose you could prevent the Titanic from sinking 
Bug Repellent
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2020
- Messages
- 87
I think Civ6 is also going up slightly, so it might just be the beginning of the summer break for college students.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,500
Maybe if you repositioned one across the captain's head and said "dude, we're gonna hit an iceberg!"If you position the deck chairs in a particular way, I suppose you could prevent the Titanic from sinking
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2011
- Messages
- 2,245
I think at least for Civ VII it may well have been the patch. We've seen short term increases in player count for previous patches, they just haven't been sustained.
And I think that may be bearing out again here, as the peak yesterday was lower than any day last week, as was the trough last night.
Looks like it still hasn't addressed the lack of "one more turn" feeling some fans are missing
Last edited:
I wonder is is even mechanically possible for Fxs to add a classic/sandbox mode without any civ switches and justnone continous.era.
Also would it be financially too expensive so they would not get green light from the publisher.
I bet that would make many people.give the game a second chance.
Also would it be financially too expensive so they would not get green light from the publisher.
I bet that would make many people.give the game a second chance.
I have my doubts that even five years of patching can truly change that player count, unless the developers are willing to do a massive 2.0 overhaul and abandon some of the controversial ideas. The damage is done, and people have largely made up their minds regarding features like eras and civ swapping - regardless of whether you think the criticism is fair or not. The reviews are locked in. Whatever patch they are planning needs to both fix the game and generate renewed buzz about the game again. I can't say these tiny patches do that. I also don't think a patch that adds basic things people expected to begin with is enough. They are in a position akin to Starfield - a bit of a joke.
It's rare that I change a negative review to a positive one, but it has happened in rare cases where large portions of a game were overhauled, resulting in a completely different experience. The problem here is that it's the core of the game that people dislike, and we are relying on the same designers (who seemingly ignore criticism) to somehow make changes that align with what players actually want. If you compare this to civ5, that game was a buggy shell of a game at release, but it was a good shell. A shell worth building on. I can't say that of civ7.
I'd love to be a part of that positive player count going up, but it needs that 2.0 overhaul and I doubt that's going to happen. So I'll just wait for civ8 and watch this train crash in slowmo for the next 4-8 years.
It's rare that I change a negative review to a positive one, but it has happened in rare cases where large portions of a game were overhauled, resulting in a completely different experience. The problem here is that it's the core of the game that people dislike, and we are relying on the same designers (who seemingly ignore criticism) to somehow make changes that align with what players actually want. If you compare this to civ5, that game was a buggy shell of a game at release, but it was a good shell. A shell worth building on. I can't say that of civ7.
I'd love to be a part of that positive player count going up, but it needs that 2.0 overhaul and I doubt that's going to happen. So I'll just wait for civ8 and watch this train crash in slowmo for the next 4-8 years.
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,779
I think you're being a bit harsh, (it's in a far, far, far better place than Starfield), but as someone who enjoys civ7 - I think this quote is very much true at this point. If they want to bring new players in they'll need to start addressing some of the issues which turned them off the game. The era system (and its attendant baggage like civ switching) really is turning into a bit of a millstone around the game's neck.
Trouble is Civ7's more controversial systems are so interconnected that there'll be a snowball effect once they start any changes... And I think any changes would have to be game modes/equivalent of mods, so a version that still has eras can still be played, which makes it likely that you fragment the audience. I hope firaxis have it in them to do something dramatic, but I don't think it will be painless if they do...
Last edited:
I actually consider the problems Starfield and Civ 7 have to be pretty similar. Both games are built around fundamentally flawed systems (civ switching/ages and Starfield's travel system) that they will have a difficult time fixing post-release. Because it's the core systems that are flawed, the flaws seep their way into just about everything else.
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,779
Is it ok if we don't start this subjective debate again over a comment that was tongue in cheek.
Core Imposter
Felon
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,457
I suspect this will be the last iteration of Civ before GenAI revolutionizes the game industry. Things could blow up pretty fast.
We should not, but there is something I would like to add... Civ switching is maybe a part of the problem, but the core issue (probably) is only with the ages system. It divides the game into three acts. There are unexplained gaps between ages and each act has different goals. Without three acts, aka ages, it would be easier to tweak gameplay.
Thinking this other way around: would it be possible to create a DLC for Civ 6 with civ switching? I believe it is technically feasible. I think it could even be a fun mechanism.
It would depend on how things are coded. One long era might be okay in some areas, but if you don't have the cycles of overbuilding, you're going to sprawl even more in your cities, barring some other change to let you overbuild anything.
Arguably I'd say the easier way would be to basically give each civ a fake predecessor/successor, so you would go from Greece into just a generic "Exploration Greek" civ, which would probably only have some generic traditions available to them. Whether any of their other bonuses would still apply, you'd have to see based on balance. Does ancient era Mughal still get +gold and -other yields? You'd probably want to limit their wonder buying ability to later in the game though. Although their unique settler obviously would be a viable unit in any era.
I assume people want that complete AAA game experience they paid for and not some mediocre hack of a solution. It can't just be one long era in the current system. It can't just be you keeping your starter civ (leaving out all the bonuses and what not) without it being perceived as a mediocre hack solution. I can't see any other way than an overhaul or let civ7 be civ7 and start thinking about civ8 asap.
aelf
Ashen One
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,500
I think the quickest fix, on that point, would be to develop a set of bonuses for each age that were Generic. You could opt to play as any of the game's civs, and in the two ages where your civ presently doesn't exist, you get the Generic bonuses (but you get that civ name and its city list throughout the game). That way you don't get no bonuses, and no one has to do the hard work of figuring out how existing civlets' bonuses should scale in each direction, forward and back.
I think the longer-term fix would be to create as many three-civs-that-in-RL-existed-in-the-same-territory (like India and China), so that one would feel that one's ongoing civ got unique bonuses in each of the three ages.
I'm surprised some modder hasn't already done the first one.
I think the longer-term fix would be to create as many three-civs-that-in-RL-existed-in-the-same-territory (like India and China), so that one would feel that one's ongoing civ got unique bonuses in each of the three ages.
I'm surprised some modder hasn't already done the first one.
kaspergm
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,833
For what it's worth, I agree with this. For better or worse, the era system and civ changing is core part of Civ7 design as I see it - I'll even say it's what defines Civ7, in much the same way that districts was what defined Civ6 and 1UPT was what defined Civ5 compared to the previous installments. So I think any fixes on Civ7 should aim towards improving these features - i.e. make era ending less abrupt, probably give player more control over what happens at era transitions (or make it more random, so it's just not everything resets completely every time) - and yes, the I hope when Civ8 comes around at some point, they have learned from some of the things currently not working in Civ7.
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 10,136
Of course this was done in Civ 3.
Similar threads
