Playing as a Continuous Civ- A HUGE Mistake

[Gorbles]

From what we can reconstruct, I don't think mixing civilizations and leaders was part of the vision. We know that Firaxis playtested other options, like keeping civilization through ages with changing leaders. So, I'd say that original vision included age reset only and things like changeable civilizations and mixing leaders with them, just came naturally from the vision.

This also fits with usual definition of vision, where it's something really short and usually aligned with marketing message. So it probably was something around "History built in layers".

It depends how early in the creative process you silo off "vision" vs. "implementation". If the vision is purely "history built in layers", then Age resets aren't even necessarily a part of it. That's implementation.

I'm being a bit more permissive than you, so I include fundamental attempts at implementing the vision as a part of the overall goal for the product (pre-release). Certainly, by the time we were getting dev blogs on each of the major features.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I don't follow...

You always have to click resources to assign them, social policies. It's tedious! The game has bigger problems, but the fact the design is so... console user-oriented (derogatory), makes playing it more of a hassle than it should be.

Idem with not being able to shift-queue techs.

 

[Evolena]

Yeah, the biggest example of snowballing to me would be comparing one leader whose ability was "+20 culture per turn on your capital" compared to a leader who had no bonuses in antiquity and exploration, but 1000 culture per turn on your capital in the modern era. If I had to choose between the 2 of them, which would I take? The first one for sure. Sure, the second leader by turn 5 of modern era would have generated more culture, but little gains early are way more valuable than later.



I think I tend to like regroup more, but trying a continuity game right now, and I will say it's nice not to lose your armies between the eras. The old version I would often rush out and try to sneak in a last commander before the transition just to keep some more units.

Personally, with the legacy points, I think it would be nice if we had some more unique and varied options, rather than putting them into attribute points. Not even just for balance, which is sorely needed (hmm, should I spend 2 culture points to get like 5 culture and 5 happiness on my wonders, or get 2 culture attribute points and get me +1 culture for every resource assigned to my settlements), but I think to give some more variety to gameplay. Like I like being given the option for -2 settlement limit but +100% influence to befriend. Or event those -10% to culture but +15% to science type options. Sure, you always need a base ability, but it's cool to choose something radically different. Even if we just had like 2-3 choices for each point total, give me a couple different choices. I'd love a "golden age shipyard" sometimes. Or give me a military legacy option for Iceland to let my naval units pillage up to 2 tiles away in modern (ie. give each civ one of their age-specific abilities as an unlock that costs legacy points at the end of the age).

The "issue" is the only one-point option you have is an attribute, and they often give more both in short and long term vs the 2-points legacy option.
I would like more one-point original legacy options, no attributes points options, but more chained and branching events to get these attribute points.

 

[Leucarum]

You always have to click resources to assign them, social policies. It's tedious! The game has bigger problems, but the fact the design is so... console user-oriented (derogatory), makes playing it more of a hassle than it should be.

Idem with not being able to shift-queue techs.

Oh! Ironically as someone who plays a lot on stwam deck this is something they got wrong there too as you end up with endless scrolling.

I think it needs some buttons like "remove all resources from city" "assign max amount of of resource" "maximize production resources" etc...

Resource assignment is definitely the most tedious thing still there. Especially with factory goods.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It depends how early in the creative process you silo off "vision" vs. "implementation". If the vision is purely "history built in layers", then Age resets aren't even necessarily a part of it. That's implementation.

I'm being a bit more permissive than you, so I include fundamental attempts at implementing the vision as a part of the overall goal for the product (pre-release). Certainly, by the time we were getting dev blogs on each of the major features.

Yeah, I'm thinking more from Product Manager perspective. To promote how new product after successful old ones, you need some killer feature, something comparable to "unstaking cities" in Civ6. That usually goes into vision, the rest is implementation, yes.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Snowballing is where a civ gets stronger and stronger over time until the civ becomes way more powerful than all other civs. It is based on the idea of a snowball rolling down the hill and getting bigger and bigger. It stems from how small advantages can have a cumulative effect. For example, maybe I get some extra gold from a goody hut. I use that gold to rush a settler. I use that early settler to found a good science city early on. The extra science helps me get techs before other civs. So now, I have better military units. I use those better military units to conquer my closest neighbor. Now, I have more cities than my neighbor which means more production, science and culture. So now I can build even more units and get even further ahead in science. So now, my military is even stronger. So I conquer more civs. Now, I am even more powerful. etc... Eventually, I become the #1 civ in everything, 2x more powerful than all the other civs combined.

Snowballing is tricky because on one hand, we want players to get ahead. And there is satisfaction in knowing you played well and were able to leverage your advantages to get ahead. But at the same time, once you become too far ahead then there is no challenge anymore. Winning becomes a matter of just pressing end turn. The game becomes boring. That is a bad thing. This forum has debated a lot how to best prevent snowballing from getting out of control. Some suggest game mechanics to punish the civ that is too far ahead but we generally don't like punishing players for doing well. Others suggest game mechanics to help the smaller civs catch up but those mechanics are often not enough to overcome the snowballing advantage of the civ in the lead. Still others suggest maybe just ending the game sooner when it is obvious that the snowballing civ will win.

I think civ7 tried to fix snowballing by having Age transitions. By ending an Age and resetting the tech and civics tree, it prevents a civ from continuing to get too far ahead in science or culture. So it breaks up the snowballing effect. But I have noticed that snowballing is still alive and well in civ7. This is because if you do well in the Antiquity Age and get lots of legacy bonuses, it will help you do better in the next Exploration Age. This often puts you in a good position to do well in the Exploration Age and get lots of legacy bonuses again which sets you up to do even better in the Modern Age. So there is still a cumulative effect where winning in one Age snowballs into the next Age. Also, the crisis don't really do much to hinder the powerful civ. On the contrary, the more powerful you are, the easier it is to weather the crisis. And crisis cannot be too strong that they punish the player too much because it would be frustrating to lose all your hard earned advantages from an arbitary event that you have no control over.

Then they did them completely wrong.

The wealthiest Empire with the most infrastructure should be the juiciest barbarian target. The wealth and infrastructure supporting a large dense population should make plagues hit it the hardest. A large military with no serious challenges will eventually turn on itself. You see what I mean.

 

[disjointaccount]

Then they did them completely wrong.

The wealthiest Empire with the most infrastructure should be the juiciest barbarian target. The wealth and infrastructure supporting a large dense population should make plagues hit it the hardest. A large military with no serious challenges will eventually turn on itself. You see what I mean.

Speculation, but I think it's a case of something that's generally true from real life (the general historical trends you mention) not necessarily translating super easily/intuitively to gameplay. What would an army turning on itself look like within the gameplay of civ? How would plague spread in such a way that it: A) makes sense; B) punishes larger population centres more, and; C) is readable and has counterplay?

Furthermore, if these ideas could be implemented, the second wall you hit is that making a game balanced is only half the battle - it also has to be fun. If the strongest player (given how most people play civ, the lone human player in a single-player game) was suddenly the sole target of a colossal wave of barbs, they're going to feel punished for playing well, which would likely result in a fair bit of backlash. Civ switching, and particularly crises, get at these ideas, albeit in a shallower way, and you can open pretty much any thread on this forum to see how contentious that's been.

I don't necessarily disagree that the ages system in its current state is not a fantastic bar against snowballing. It's just that balancing a level playing field with not frustrating players by making them feel like they're being punished for doing well is a pretty thin line to walk and probably not as simple as something like "just copy how Rome fell".

 

[Leucarum]

In general though, the only way I can think they could make age transitions or crises work to curb snowballing is for them to hit the player harder than the AI. I'm sure they tried that though and I would be amazed if it wasn't a real feels-bad mechanic.

 

[King Flevance]

Speculation, but I think it's a case of something that's generally true from real life (the general historical trends you mention) not necessarily translating super easily/intuitively to gameplay. What would an army turning on itself look like within the gameplay of civ? How would plague spread in such a way that it: A) makes sense; B) punishes larger population centres more, and; C) is readable and has counterplay?

You could have a system in place for both of these ideas. The health system from Civ 4 could easily be a mechanic to plug in a plague. You could also tinker with a "morale" mechanic and unit maintenance to cause units to defect, even commanders.

Furthermore, if these ideas could be implemented, the second wall you hit is that making a game balanced is only half the battle - it also has to be fun. If the strongest player (given how most people play civ, the lone human player in a single-player game) was suddenly the sole target of a colossal wave of barbs, they're going to feel punished for playing well, which would likely result in a fair bit of backlash. Civ switching, and particularly crises, get at these ideas, albeit in a shallower way, and you can open pretty much any thread on this forum to see how contentious that's been.

A problem I have been noticing is that many players want the game to just roll over and let them win if they get a bit of momentum going, or it is unfun. Challenging mechanics can be fun. It seems like there is a common sentiment expressed that if anything is put in place to make holding the lead harder, it is "punishing you for playing well". Pretty much every video game gets harder the more you do well at it. Why should civ be any different?

Crises get backlash because they suck as a mechanic in their design. They don't punish the leader, they punish everyone about equally. You don't get a "good" with the "bad", you just get to pick the least "bad" choice. They are not really dynamic beyond a superficial presentation and don't offer much strategy because your choices are usually pretty obvious. Zero depth and shallow implementation.

Civ Switching also suffers from some design flaws but it is less severe than crises. Crises is probably the better comparison. However, implementation makes a huge difference in the viability of a mechanic. @aieeegrunt's idea actually addresses snowballing, crises does not. As far as I am concerned anyone whining about the game not just handing them the victory can go cry about it elsewhere. I don't think the leader being allowed to just run away with the victory is good gameplay.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

What would an army turning on itself look like within the gameplay of civ?

It could look like one of your army commanders becomes a "barbarian" commander and all the units that were packed inside become "barbarian" units. Your army commander, now turned barbarian, attacks your other units and cities.

How would plague spread in such a way that it: A) makes sense; B) punishes larger population centres more, and; C) is readable and has counterplay?

The probability of a plague starting in a city could be based on population. So bigger cities have a greater chance to spawn a plague.

 

[Haig]

I really miss getting a new leader with each new civ.

Yeah, this new way is less work for Firaxis and they can also include more obscure civs for which leaders are harder to find, but still it would have been cool to get a leader for Iceland, Tonga, Carthage, Britain etc.

Leaders really did add unique personality to their civs, for me at least the new way is much more bland.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

I really miss getting a new leader with each new civ.

Yeah, this new way is less work for Firaxis and they can also include more obscure civs for which leaders are harder to find, but still it would have been cool to get a leader for Iceland, Tonga, Carthage, Britain etc.

Leaders really did add unique personality to their civs, for me at least the new way is much more bland.

Wouldn't surprise me if we get a leader pass filling out the leaderless Civs.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Speculation, but I think it's a case of something that's generally true from real life (the general historical trends you mention) not necessarily translating super easily/intuitively to gameplay. What would an army turning on itself look like within the gameplay of civ? How would plague spread in such a way that it: A) makes sense; B) punishes larger population centres more, and; C) is readable and has counterplay?

Furthermore, if these ideas could be implemented, the second wall you hit is that making a game balanced is only half the battle - it also has to be fun. If the strongest player (given how most people play civ, the lone human player in a single-player game) was suddenly the sole target of a colossal wave of barbs, they're going to feel punished for playing well, which would likely result in a fair bit of backlash. Civ switching, and particularly crises, get at these ideas, albeit in a shallower way, and you can open pretty much any thread on this forum to see how contentious that's been.

I don't necessarily disagree that the ages system in its current state is not a fantastic bar against snowballing. It's just that balancing a level playing field with not frustrating players by making them feel like they're being punished for doing well is a pretty thin line to walk and probably not as simple as something like "just copy how Rome fell".

Well as a designer, pick a lane

Either the game is a runaway snowball, and people hate late game tedium and don’t finish games

Or the game is challenging and engaging all the way to the end.

Civ7 got the backlash it did because it arguable did neither; you have very visibly designer fiat “resets” but it would seem like they didn’t solve the snowball either.

There are ways to limit snowballs other than slamming everyone with a reset button. A lot of your “power” in Civ scales with population; the larger a population is and the more dense the more likely epidemics are, the easier they spread and the harder they hit as one intuitive real world example.

 

[Crashdummy]

I agree with this. I too think they should stick with civ switching in this game. If it doesn’t work, well then there is always a civ 8...

What people dont seem to understand is what "not working" means. A new Civ game take years, Firaxis comes from a bad round with Midnight Suns and they need Civ 7 to work. They cant support 10 years of Civ 8 development if Civ 7 doesnt work

Sure, 2k can support it, but its a big decision to do so

 

[stealth_nsk]

What people dont seem to understand is what "not working" means. A new Civ game take years, Firaxis comes from a bad round with Midnight Suns and they need Civ 7 to work. They cant support 10 years of Civ 8 development if Civ 7 doesnt work

Sure, 2k can support it, but its a big decision to do so

There's always an option to drop Civ8 development cost and see the game spiraling out of major leagues, like HoMM franchise did. I really hope 2K and Firaxis will go that way.

But again I strongly disagree with binary "work / don't work" distinction. Ability to play the game as one civ will cause some people who didn't buy the game yet, try it. It will also cause some people who own the game, but are dissatisfied with it, to return to it and buy some DLC. Sizes of those segments are hard to predict, and they also will change in time, as more patches and expansions will be released.

 

[Smegger213]

What people dont seem to understand is what "not working" means. A new Civ game take years, Firaxis comes from a bad round with Midnight Suns and they need Civ 7 to work. They cant support 10 years of Civ 8 development if Civ 7 doesnt work

Sure, 2k can support it, but its a big decision to do so

Exactly this. Yes they need to appease those that dont like it to persuade them to either buy it or continue playing.
They need to make it a success. That means putting in things like one Civ game play. Its no good leaving it to the next version.

 

[Crashdummy]

Snowballing is tricky because on one hand, we want players to get ahead. And there is satisfaction in knowing you played well and were able to leverage your advantages to get ahead. But at the same time, once you become too far ahead then there is no challenge anymore. Winning becomes a matter of just pressing end turn. The game becomes boring. That is a bad thing. This forum has debated a lot how to best prevent snowballing from getting out of control. Some suggest game mechanics to punish the civ that is too far ahead but we generally don't like punishing players for doing well. Others suggest game mechanics to help the smaller civs catch up but those mechanics are often not enough to overcome the snowballing advantage of the civ in the lead. Still others suggest maybe just ending the game sooner when it is obvious that the snowballing civ will win.

I think people are overestimating snowballing. People say they get too far ahead but they think of situations of players that played well during the whole game. If you played well in the early, got ahead, and keep playing better than your opponents, of course you will crush them, and you should. You played the whole game better than them, what would you expect, lose?

If you play a sports game, and you win every single game, you will end way ahead of the competition

Snowballing wasnt such a big problem in Civilization, the games were always won by the better player, as it should.

 

[Crashdummy]

Then they did them completely wrong.

The wealthiest Empire with the most infrastructure should be the juiciest barbarian target. The wealth and infrastructure supporting a large dense population should make plagues hit it the hardest. A large military with no serious challenges will eventually turn on itself. You see what I mean.

That would be a fast way to lose players

Why would i need to be punished for playing well? It makes no sense. The one playing well should win, the one playing BAD shsould be punished and pushed to learning how to play

If you play well, winning IS the LOGICAL OUTCOME

 

[Gorbles]

I think people are overestimating snowballing. People say they get too far ahead but they think of situations of players that played well during the whole game. If you played well in the early, got ahead, and keep playing better than your opponents, of course you will crush them, and you should. You played the whole game better than them, what would you expect, lose?

"playing better" is not "snowballing".

Personally, I think you're underestimating it. You can still not like what the devs attempted without trying to pretend that their rationale doesn't exist.

 

[Crashdummy]

"playing better" is not "snowballing".

Personally, I think you're underestimating it. You can still not like what the devs attempted without trying to pretend that their rationale doesn't exist.

If you play better during the first 90% of the game, it would be unfair to lose because of a mistake in the other 10%

Now, if you play well in the first 10% and bad in the last 90%, you should lose and you would lose in ANY Civ game

Those are extreme examples, but if you make the 10% grow to 30%, both would still be true. Its probably not a 50-50, but that is asking for a bit too much

I still think this snowballing is overestimated by people that play better than the opponents 100% of the time, so during the whole game, and they claim there is a snowballing issue

i'll tell you more, in Civ 7 if you play Antiquity and Exploration flawlessly, but fool around in Modern, you can lose to an opponent getting a winning condition before you