Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[stealth_nsk]

A lot of this can happen with Ages like we used to have. You dont need Ages interrupting the game for that

The problem with Ages isnt their existence, we have had Ages for a long time. The problem is that they inteerrupt gameplay and make things change magically (like upgrading units)

Things like buildings becoming obsolete and overbuilding does not require such interruption, same with resources

I agree that it's possible to design Civilization game without abrupt age transition, we've seen it in 6 previous installments. I disagree that it could be done with reasonable resources in Civ7. All things which I've listed are made for age progression, all of them would require dramatic changes in the game.

 

[queenpea]

Nothing. Months ago on this very thread (and others similar to this), people were swearing up and down that all they needed was for players to be allowed to keep their civ. I predicted that they won't be satisfied because they've formed an opinion, and opinions are hard to change. They denied it.

And now here we are.

Are you referring to the single poster? Many people (I would even venture to say most) here are excited by the tease of a "classic mode" and are appreciative of Firaxis for listening to feedback.

 

[Gorbles]

A lot of this can happen with Ages like we used to have. You dont need Ages interrupting the game for that

You need a threshold for which the changes happen at. You need a way of ensuring assets are loaded and unloaded properly (for performance / game optimisation as a game drags on).

Units do not change "magically". Units change because the timeframe of the Age has moved on (by centuries). The sudden-ness of that change being jarring is something I understand, but that doesn't justify misrepresenting what the Age Transition is actually doing. It's not magic; it's not intended as magic. If the communication of this shift is poor, then criticise that! If you oppose the age change entirely regardless of how well it's communicated or grounded in any narrative, then oppose that!

It's easy to come up with ideas (especially high-level ideas). It's harder to implement them. A common assumption is that developers haven't tried X or Y (the amount of times people have asked "didn't they try leader switching" when one of the very first dev blogs on Civ VII literally says yes, they did is a good example of that). What you should do is discard that assumption, and try and really defend / interrogate your own ideas to refine their depth and clarity.

(this is again more of a design discussion, the same direction as I was headed with GeneralZift. The thread moved on a lot, so I didn't end up replying to him, but it was an interesting tangent)

 

[Bug Repellent]

I reserve judgement until I see how keeping your civ is implemented. I hope it's not merely cosmetic. And they still have to fix the mid and late game city sprawl. Map readability remains unacceptable to me.

 

[ombak]

I'll be quite impressed if a Classic Mode provided in a patch, without the full resources of an expansion, is more than just allowing players to pick any Civ during whatever era they start in, and being locked to that Civ for the duration of the game. (Or in a small patch, if we're looking at a dev cycle with no expansions, just minor and major patches and constant content).

I'd expect some basic things to make sure it not only works, but feels like an intended way of playing (e.g.: providing some changes in text and UI to describe what the options does, how it "makes sense", inform the player that you can do this, but your Civ will have their bonuses only in their intended era, etc.)

But you'd still have to go through the age transitions, and your civ would basically be vanilla in the two ages it was not designed for. Though maybe there would be some opportunities for a little bit of flavor, such as having an option of a city name for a new capital if appropriate for that Civ.

 

[aelf]

Are you referring to the single poster? Many people (I would even venture to say most) here are excited by the tease of a "classic mode" and are appreciative of Firaxis for listening to feedback.

There's more than one poster in this thread so far. I count the skeptics because this change is what was asked for - i.e. being able to keep one civ throughout a game. If someone has to be convinced by more changes, then by definition they're not satisfied simply with a "classic mode."

 

[Aquila SPQR]

There's more than one poster in this thread so far. I count the skeptics because this change is what was asked for - i.e. being able to keep one civ throughout a game. If someone has to be convinced by more changes, then by definition they're not satisfied simply with a "classic mode."

I won't be satisfied with a classic mode alone, as there is more than just one bad thing that prevents me from buying Civ VII. Classic mode is mandatory for me to even consider buying it, so it's definitely a welcome news. But even with classic mode Civ VII will still look extremely ugly with all that unrestricted urban sprawl, so unless that will be addressed somehow (even with mods) - I won't buy it.

 

[Bug Repellent]

I won't be satisfied with a classic mode alone, as there is more than just one bad thing that prevents me from buying Civ VII. Classic mode is mandatory for me to even consider buying it, so it's definitely a welcome news. But even with classic mode Civ VII will still look extremely ugly with all that unrestricted urban sprawl, so unless that will be addressed somehow (even with mods) - I won't buy it.

Same. The clutter and map unreadability are awful. Zoom in and the game looks gorgeous. Zoom out to the level required to play the game and readability is terrible. This is why in my opinion the game is unstreamable.

 

[itix]

There's more than one poster in this thread so far. I count the skeptics because this change is what was asked for - i.e. being able to keep one civ throughout a game. If someone has to be convinced by more changes, then by definition they're not satisfied simply with a "classic mode."

I am excited about this change but the cake is not baked yet. We have to wait and see.

 

[tman2000]

Could you post the exact quote?

No, we're not playing the hairsplitting game today.

 

[tman2000]

Same. The clutter and map unreadability are awful. Zoom in and the game looks gorgeous. Zoom out to the level required to play the game and readability is terrible. This is why in my opinion the game is unstreamable.

The Civ 7 VR debacle seem to me to indicate the art direction they were going for. Remember that when Civ 7 entered development, Meta and VR was considered to be the next frontier of technology. We were going to be wearing Apple and Oculus AR goggles to get ads over grocery shelves with contactless payment and so forth.

 

[tman2000]

I won't be satisfied with a classic mode alone, as there is more than just one bad thing that prevents me from buying Civ VII. Classic mode is mandatory for me to even consider buying it, so it's definitely a welcome news. But even with classic mode Civ VII will still look extremely ugly with all that unrestricted urban sprawl, so unless that will be addressed somehow (even with mods) - I won't buy it.

I haven't been a big stickler about classic mode but I acknowledge the basic marketing necessity of implementing it. The narrative can't change, and too many people will remain unsatisfied unless it's added.

 

[stealth_nsk]

No, we're not playing the hairsplitting game today.

You made a claim which I didn't see on patch notes at all and refuse to provide quote. How is this hairsplitting?

 

[tman2000]

Sound exciting? Well, this is where we're inviting you to help us shape what these mechanics ultimately look like for Civ VII. Over the next few months, we’re kicking off a new initiative: the Firaxis Feature Workshop. This is our way of opening the door earlier, inviting a small number of community members to go hands-on with features still in development and tell us what’s working, what’s not, and what’s missing so that we can deliver the best possible Civ VII experience.

Very good. Now just, go bonkers Firaxis. Go crazy. Experiment.

With the right features in a better UI, Civ 7 could be very fun.

 

[itix]

You made a claim which I didn't see on patch notes at all and refuse to provide quote. How is this hairsplitting?

I remember this. I remember someone mentioning this but it was someone who claimed to have inside information.

The explanation honestly made sense but it is only a rumour.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I remember this. I remember someone mentioning this but it was someone who claimed to have inside information.

The explanation honestly made sense but it is only a rumour.

@tman2000 said it was in the latest patch notes, not in some insider information.

 

[Crashdummy]

You need a threshold for which the changes happen at. You need a way of ensuring assets are loaded and unloaded properly (for performance / game optimisation as a game drags on).

Units do not change "magically". Units change because the timeframe of the Age has moved on (by centuries). The sudden-ness of that change being jarring is something I understand, but that doesn't justify misrepresenting what the Age Transition is actually doing. It's not magic; it's not intended as magic. If the communication of this shift is poor, then criticise that! If you oppose the age change entirely regardless of how well it's communicated or grounded in any narrative, then oppose that!

It's easy to come up with ideas (especially high-level ideas). It's harder to implement them. A common assumption is that developers haven't tried X or Y (the amount of times people have asked "didn't they try leader switching" when one of the very first dev blogs on Civ VII literally says yes, they did is a good example of that). What you should do is discard that assumption, and try and really defend / interrogate your own ideas to refine their depth and clarity.

(this is again more of a design discussion, the same direction as I was headed with GeneralZift. The thread moved on a lot, so I didn't end up replying to him, but it was an interesting tangent)

English is not my native language so maybe i am not explaining myself properly

The threshhold is the Age change. We already had Age changes before. You can make buldings becoming obsolete on Age change without halting the game, that is my point

The big issue with Civ 7 Ages is the fact that they interrupt gameplay and make sudden changes, like upgrading units. You can make changes like making units obsolete and change resources on Age change (we already had resources dissapearing and showing up based on research before, which i would prefer honestly)

I dont like things changing on Age change, i prefer this kind of stuff changing on things with player agency like research, but my point is that you dont need the transition interrupting gameplay to do them

I will give you the same feedback i already gave on these items. Obsolency, upgrades, resources should change based on research instead of on something inevitable lik Age changes. A building doesnt get obsolete just by time, it gets obsolete when something better replaces it, and that something better comes with research

 

[Core Imposter]

• We're shifting into a slightly new update rhythm as we test and refine some big system changes to Civ VII, and we're opening up a new way for players to get hands-on with features and provide feedback directly to the devs. We are really excited for this one and hope everyone interested will apply to be a part of this - we’ll share more details on how soon!

I don't know what else they could do at this point. They are groveling. Take advantage of the offer. Personally, I hope some of you join this effort and constantly complain about 1UPT.

 

[Gorbles]

You can make buldings becoming obsolete on Age change without halting the game, that is my point

How do you unload and load in new assets on a regular turn end? Hypothetical technical challenge.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Doesn't the whole map get redrawn?