Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Gori the Grey]

Micromanagement explodes. Here firaxis made improvements - less production queues, no builders. But millitary adventures in particular are micromanagement hell, and since you have a larger empire, you're gonna have more stuff to do.

Reading this made a thought flash into my head. I don't know how one would work it out in detail, but you know what might make for a cool game design? As you reach certain spots on the tech-tree, things that used to involve micro-management now get automated. Maybe when they get automated, they get locked in at whatever level you had reached through your earlier micromanagement, so there's an incentive for playing the earlier game well. But these automations also take busywork off the player's hands so that they can focus on a set of challenges particular to the late game.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Reading this made a thought flash into my head. I don't know how one would work it out in detail, but you know what might make for a cool game design? As you reach certain spots on the tech-tree, things that used to involve micro-management now get automated. Maybe when they get automated, they get locked in at whatever level you had reached through your earlier micromanagement, so there's an incentive for playing the earlier game well. But these automations also take busywork off the player's hands so that they can focus on a set of challenges particular to the late game.

Part of the late game fatigue is that you are making more decisions, but they are less impactfull. Another part is that often due to the “Fireaxis Generation” (Civ 5 and 6) AI being so awfull, the game is already decided long before it actually ends.

The first one, having things be more automated as you advance is clever, as one example early game you have to build workers, move them to a tile, make an improvement, or repair it if pillaged.

As your civilization becomes more advanced you unlock the ability to simply purchase or repair improvements with faith or gold like you can with buildings in 6.

For the latter problem, Fireaxis has to do the actual work to make the AI decent, instead of shortcuts like era resets

 

[Krikkit1]

I mostly agree with you but still don't understand why people think the modern age is boring.

As long as the AI challenges you, and also stays somewhat within your power level, the ending is always bound to be interesting.
This is obvious when you play online with other players of near skill.

The game doesn't mechanically have a late game issue. Or if it does, it doesn't need an overhaul. It has an issue that the AI is too easy or too exploitable and sometimes unfair or otherwise "too robotic" to feel like an interesting, substantially different, opponent every time.

IF you get a terrible start, I recommend playing it out. You'll find that trying to make the most of awful surroundings and crawling your way to relevancy by the modern period tends to be filled with interesting challenges.

As fun as the God start is, it doesn't provide any challenge.
And when all the starts are the same, and the AI is easy too, you don't feel challenged at all ever.

This is the source of the Civ7 late game problem.

Very much this.
They won’t have an interesting late game until it is competitive. The only ways to do that are
1. make a much better AI (not likely achievable to the degree needed)
2. have the AI bonuses ramp up from one era to the next (possible, maybe even dynamically adjusting based on AI performance in previous age)

 

[Leucarum]

Reading this made a thought flash into my head. I don't know how one would work it out in detail, but you know what might make for a cool game design? As you reach certain spots on the tech-tree, things that used to involve micro-management now get automated. Maybe when they get automated, they get locked in at whatever level you had reached through your earlier micromanagement, so there's an incentive for playing the earlier game well. But these automations also take busywork off the player's hands so that they can focus on a set of challenges particular to the late game.

I guess a few games have tried this. I'm very curious anout EU5 in particular as it has a lot of options for automating bits of your empire.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yeah, I don't know any other games than Civ. So if one of my brilliant ideas has already been done

For the latter problem, Fireaxis has to do the actual work to make the AI decent, instead of shortcuts like era resets

But maybe it could even help the AI. One part of why the human player does better is that it can handle complexities better (1upt combat, e.g). The more you simplify, the easier it is to program the AI to handle the challenges.

 

[Krikkit1]

Reading this made a thought flash into my head. I don't know how one would work it out in detail, but you know what might make for a cool game design? As you reach certain spots on the tech-tree, things that used to involve micro-management now get automated. Maybe when they get automated, they get locked in at whatever level you had reached through your earlier micromanagement, so there's an incentive for playing the earlier game well. But these automations also take busywork off the player's hands so that they can focus on a set of challenges particular to the late game.

Agree with micro decisions getting agglomerated. One way to do that is keeping “units” about the same cost as a % of your empire (the maintenance increases are a start but the costs should probably be x1,3,10 instead of x1,2,3 for each era)

If they could have “grow queues”where you could click on a few tiles within 3 radius of the settlement and it would move to reach them, that would help (plop down settlement, queue up resources, buy buildings…come back when it’s ready to specialize)

The building cost increases probably help as well.

 

[Gori the Grey]

If they could have “grow queues”where you could click on a few tiles within 3 radius of the settlement and it would move to reach them, that would help (plop down settlement, queue up resources, buy buildings…come back when it’s ready to specialize)

I've sometimes thought, too, that when you reach some tech representing "the nation state," every unsettled tile over the entire globe gradually (over ten turns, maybe) agglomerates toward the nearest border. Not really an automation thing, per se, but takes one previous game mechanic, settling, out of your hair (and out of the AI's hair).

 

[aieeegrunt]

Yeah, I don't know any other games than Civ. So if one of my brilliant ideas has already been done

But maybe it could even help the AI. One part of why the human player does better is that it can handle complexities better (1upt combat, e.g). The more you simplify, the easier it is to program the AI to handle the challenges.

One of the reasons the AI was more of a threat in earlier civ games was not only the AI behavior, but earlier civs had simpler AND deeper mechanics

Contrast all the policy cards of 6 with the much simpler but far more elegant and deeper mechanic of the Luxury/Taxes/Science sliders. Not only is the latter far more intuitive and mechanically elegant, but it’s way easier to program for an AI

1 UPT is of course the biggest headache, and the stupidly OP nature of ranged units in 5 and 6 only makes it worse.

 

[Gori the Grey]

So maybe one of these "automations" is that combat shifts to SoDs instead of CoDs? Just spitballin.

 

[Gorbles]

I've played enough games of EU to have the opinion that sliders are . . . not for me. They're pretty abstract. Cards are pretty concrete. I can't really comment on the respective depth, but I also can't really see how an increasing amount of slottable bonuses is less deep than tweaking linear investment across a number of axes.

 

[Leucarum]

I've played enough games of EU to have the opinion that sliders are . . . not for me. They're pretty abstract. Cards are pretty concrete. I can't really comment on the respective depth, but I also can't really see how an increasing amount of slottable bonuses is less deep than tweaking linear investment across a number of axes.

I'd say the advantage of sliders is that they usually mean tradeoffs (as opposed to just an opportunity cost). Like in previous EU games you would have had to make a tradeoff in terms of losing stability if you wanted to become more innovative.

I don't know that I prefer one system there over the other.

Yeah, I don't know any other games than Civ. So if one of my brilliant ideas has already been done

There's also games which give you a set number of orders you can use that can go a long way to prevent the late game getting bloated. Old World is the most obvious example at the moment I guess. But the earliest implementation I can think of is in the not-especially-good MOO3... And I think my favourite example is in Stellaris Nexus - though that's far more of a digital board game.

 

[Leucarum]

Very much this.
They won’t have an interesting late game until it is competitive. The only ways to do that are
1. make a much better AI (not likely achievable to the degree needed)
2. have the AI bonuses ramp up from one era to the next (possible, maybe even dynamically adjusting based on AI performance in previous age)

I suspect you're right that within the framework of Civ7 they'd need to make age transitions affect players and AI unevenly, otherwise the player just repeatedly uses age transitions to springboard ahead of the AI.

But I also don't think it's easy to make that not feel arbitrary, and hence un-fun.

The temptation for Firaxis is probably to be ambitious, and double-down on their vision but I doubt they have the capacity to pull it off now that they're on the back foot and having all their decisions judged by a hard player base... As much as the original idea for Civ7 was cool, and the idea of making the late game interesting is worth pursuing, if I were Firaxis I'd throw in the towel somewhat.

 

[Crashdummy]

I find it interesting the argument about player numbers seems to keep changing. Here we have the move from the fact that a decline is bad news, to an increase still being bad news.

Hypothetical question: what if they did a Classic mode as per your own exact specifications, and the player numbers didn't rise significantly. What then?

There is no increase. Every single time a patch comes out the numbers reach around 12k. There is no increase, at all

 

[Crashdummy]

Reading this made a thought flash into my head. I don't know how one would work it out in detail, but you know what might make for a cool game design? As you reach certain spots on the tech-tree, things that used to involve micro-management now get automated. Maybe when they get automated, they get locked in at whatever level you had reached through your earlier micromanagement, so there's an incentive for playing the earlier game well. But these automations also take busywork off the player's hands so that they can focus on a set of challenges particular to the late game.

The problem with this is, that if Firaxis knew how to efficiently automate decisions in Civ 7, then we would have a better AI

Automating the micro management means giving those decisions to the AI, the same AI that cant challenge a good player

 

[Gori the Grey]

Ah, fair enough. Anyway, it's a tangent. Back to player counts.

 

[Krikkit1]

The problem with this is, that if Firaxis knew how to efficiently automate decisions in Civ 7, then we would have a better AI

Automating the micro management means giving those decisions to the AI, the same AI that cant challenge a good player

Well I think there is a difference between automating micromanagement and removing it.

Civ 1-6: Automated Workers/builders and Automated Citizen (re)Assignment
Civ 7: Tiles are improved with the only non unique improvement they can have as soon as they are used and Citizen assignment is permanent (except when built over)

What if certain features were just removed as you went from Antiquity to Modern.
Maybe buildings don't have a specific location any more... a Factory just means all Quarters in the city get an adjacency to resources.

Or buildings autorepair after X turns (you can speed it up with gold if needed)

Or you no longer have trade routes to particular settlements, just to Empires (and it is all diplomacy screen no building Traders needed)

That is the type of thing that could change from one age to the next to reduce micromanagement.

 

[Gorbles]

There is no increase. Every single time a patch comes out the numbers reach around 12k. There is no increase, at all

Not what I asked, but fair enough!

 

[A_Most_Foolish_Fool]

I mean, if we want to see the increasing pattern, we should look at the whole picture. You want a comparison, but I want to show you an increasing pattern, and the fact that the game had a specific percentage and then it increased with time clearly supports the idea that there’s an increasing pattern.


I’m aware that there are probably other posts with little basis in reality — I’m sure they exist. That’s why I shared the raw percentages, so we can discuss the objective numbers instead of opinions.

About the “microscope” you mentioned: it’s totally fair that you like it. In fact, I think many people nowadays share your perspective, which is why so many companies have recently started catering to that preference. I just find it impossible to say, “you’re wrong because you like something I don’t.” That’s why I was a bit surprised by your previous post, where you seemed to suggest that Bug Repellent’s post "was wrong simply because he liked something you don't" (I know you've not wrote it directly, but to me it seemed the "subtext" of your message, you've even called him in bad faith).

Personally, I’ve felt forced to see Gorgo instead of Leonidas — just like I’d feel forced to see Queen Victoria’s husband instead of Victoria herself. But that’s just a matter of taste and it's perfectly fine to prefer Gorgo.


From my perspective, I wouldn’t exclude a leader just because they were responsible for an empire’s decline, I'm not even sure why you're discussing about this. When I think of potential leaders for the game, I prefer historically famous and impactful figures — for better or worse. Take Philip II, for example: you mentioned him, but I can think of dozens of leaders in the Civilization series who were responsible for their nation’s downfall, or even for atrocities like genocide or war crimes and yes, as you said, nobody cares (or at least, the majority of people doesn't care).
Again, it’s all a matter of personal preference, but I definitely would not say that one of the most impactful leader in the spanish history felt "forced" (even if he was impactful for the "wrong" reasons!). Maybe people like you prefer only “positive” figures — which again is totally fine - but that would definitely narrow the range of possible leaders in the game.




I’ve already said I don’t care that much — I only calculated the percentages because it seemed clear there was a pattern, and it felt odd to deny it.

You seem quite eager to twist my words, so this conversation may no longer be a productive one. That said, I will clarify one point which is that I don't mind Philip II's inclusion at all. I only bring him up to highlight that there are many male leaders where these same arguments could have been made, but for some reason they so very rarely are.

 

[marius_kaparius]

The reason I don't think late game boredom is the millstone is that it never was before. Firaxis have yet to make an interesting late game experience*, but that didn't materially harm Civs1-6, SMAC, etc...

7 however puts a bunch of sirens up drawing attention to a flaw. I think Ages could survive this more easily than Civ switching which effectively becomes a content lock.

My current skepticism is also informed by the fact that this problem is something Firaxis have never been able to solve before. And now they have to solve it in real time, with an irate playerbase judging their every move. If I were Firaxis I don't know if this is the battle I would really want to be fighting...

* I'd credit Civ3's WWII scenario as actually being a good modern experience but that just pushes the argument that 7 is a good fit for scenarios...

So you're saying I'm right - thank you More seriously, the game needs scenarios. With the exception of Civ 1 and base 6 the other games in the series had scenarios in the base game and it would be much easier to argue for the price tag if it had them. It would also offer more ways to play the game that don't engage with the friction of Era swaps (though that friction needs to be reduced going forward too)

 

[Leucarum]

So you're saying I'm right - thank you More seriously, the game needs scenarios. With the exception of Civ 1 and base 6 the other games in the series had scenarios in the base game and it would be much easier to argue for the price tag if it had them. It would also offer more ways to play the game that don't engage with the friction of Era swaps (though that friction needs to be reduced going forward too)

I mean scenarios can be fun, so it's not bad to have them... They are also a good fit for Civ7. But I don't know that I've actually enjoyed any of the scenarios Firaxis put out since Civ3. They also have limited replayability, and aren't a substitute for the actual base game. I imagine a lot of people would complain about scenarios when the base game is still in a bad spot.