Playing as a Continuous Civ- A HUGE Mistake

[King Flevance]

I think that too much rubber banding is also bad game design. If the game won't let you fall behind during the first 150 turns, those will not really matter. If the only thing that matters is playing the perfect last 50 turns, why play the first turns at all?

In my opinion, at every point in the game, you should be able to get an advantage. Depending on the game, this could be either by skilled moves or just sheer luck. Even if you are ahead, you should be able to increase your lead. It might just be harder to do so. It only becomes a snowballing problem when being ahead in the game increases the amount of advantage you are able to get, so you get exponential scaling.

But that also means that there will be a point in the game when victory is inevitable. Which is a price I am willing to pay for having the entire game matter.

I agree that too much rubber banding is bad game design as well.

I also agree that a game should offer many opportunities for players to gain an advantage, which is why snowballing is bad. If the game design allows one player to get a massive lead, then the other players have no opportunities to gain an advantage so the design fails to offer on its promise. In order for that premise to hold true then it means there are constant ways to gain a disadvantage and this does not hold true in that scenario. Unless your argument is that YOU should be able to gain an advantage at all times, not everyone. Either you allow a runaway leader OR you implement ways for all players to gain the opportunity for an advantage so the leader must fight to retain the lead. There are many ways to do this and "rubber banding" is too broad of a term beyond the discussion of the broad topic of "snowballing".

Specifically, the conversation was primarily in regards to crises as a "punishing for winning" mechanic. However, I see it more like friction or resistance for the leaders in specific areas. You recall the old lists in Civ "Pliney the Elder compiled a list of the largest civilizations" Now, with Crises these lists could have more relevance. If each age gave you a list of largest, wealthiest, etc. then when the crises hit, you would have a good idea of who would probably be impacted most. But I wouldn't let this list telegraph which crises was coming. Instead, show them all mid age.
This does not attack you for "winning". The largest empire could have a weak economy. The most advanced could be militaristicaly weak, and so on. Crises should be predetermined and select targets based on how well a civ is doing in that area. The plague should target players with the most population. Smaller nations should be able to stop trading with them to minimize risk of spread. It is possible that player might lose the lead for a bit, but they could also have a strong enough economy to hold out against it. Beyond this, we get into the details but the overall idea is simply to add resistance to any player(s) who would be dominating in a particular area of the game. As well, this is only 2 times per game.

 

[Crashdummy]

Second: If we agree that snowball is a reward/point of the game. Then what to do with the late game when the leading snowball has gotten to big and the winner is obvious. Well there is only one solution. The playing field must be leveled (I.e all snowballs must return to the same size). This can of course be achieved by punishing the leader or boosting the non-leaders. That’s what they tried to do with the ages-resetting I suppose.

But because of the legacies system and attributes the playing field is not entirely leveled.

So I have a thought (so far perhaps not well thought through): What If the legacie points doesn’t give you advantages in the next age? Let’s say they only contribute to a total winning score instead? Then each age can be leveled and each age will be a competition to get the most legaciespoints.

That would be a very bad idea. It would make the first Ages worthless if everyone is going to be levele in the last one which is when you can win the game

Resets are the quickest way to get the entire franchise gone, completely destroyed. Players DO NOT LIKE resets, they dont like when its too obvious that others are getting benefits (which difficulties alread do). The main reason why Civ 7 is failing is because it doesnt feel as fair as other Civ games. Because of the stupid Ages, because of Civ switching, because all this stuff. Trying to push this can kill the entire franchise, a franchise that BLOOMED with what you guys call snowballing

And to the ones that told me i dont know what snowballing is, yes, i know, you dont get my point

If you guys in Viceroy get such a huge lead that the game is easy, then you are too good for the fdifficulty

I understand sniowballing,. its a very easy concept, its not rocket science, so stop telling me i dont and actually try to think of my point instead of dismissing as a definition issue

You do not get such a big lead that you cant lose, ever, you always have to continue playing and doing stuff at a reasonable level to win. Now, you can get such a lead that you can do things inefficient and still win, but THAT is not necessarily snowballing (as proven by my Formula 1 example, which i NOT snowballing, but getting a good lead early can allow you do "chill" at the end and still win)

I am pretty sure if a Deity player plays 80% of a game, and then gives its save to a beginner player, that beginner player will lose against the AI. Therefore, there isnt such thing as of "already won games". They are already won "if you keep playing at your level", which was my entire point

Anyway, i got kind of tired of this, and i dont think we will reach an agreement

 

[gdr_willter]

They are already won "if you keep playing at your level",

Yes, we play the Civ game at our level so it becomes such a problem. And the point we noticed that we already won comes way earlier than the 80% of the session.

 

[Teutonic_Tirade]

I think it would be better if they made it so you had to unlock all new Civs, including the your historically fitting ones and made it much harder to unlock non-historical ones. If you fail to unlock it, you're more like "stuck" with your current Civ as a downside rather than a bonus.

 

[cinattra]

It's still funny to me how someone can imply that the people asking for classic mode are just a "loud minority" and that there is some silent majority of Civ swapping lovers out there when we're talking about an entry that regularly struggles to compete with the player counts of Civ V...

There is a reason why Firaxis has almost immediately started walking back its most controversial design choices.

Honestly and this is on the whomever for not having the forethought, but there should have been a "classic mode" in Civ7. The changes were simply too grand to be fully loved from day 1. They probably didn't want it to compete with non-classic. I feel Civ gamers are bit different than most though. I have been playing since Civ1, that is approximately 35+ years of playing a game and counting.

 

[cinattra]

There are quite a few “catch up” mods like that for Civ6, where you essentially get a free boost (Eureka or Inspiration) for a tech or civic if you don’t have it yet but a certain number of civs you have met do (adjusted for map scale).

There is also at least one mod that gives you a bonus to science yields if you are researching a tech that a Friend has but you do not, and a bigger bonus if it’s an Ally.

These are both great from both a “Historical Role Play” and gameplay perspective as they feel right, they are a gradual thing rather than arbitrary developer fiat, and it’s easy to balance.

It is not that Eurekas/Inspirations were a catch-up mode, it just allowed a different way of playing for Civs that were not strong in science and/or culture to play and possibly not fall too far behind in the areas of science and/or culture. I was terribly shocked when they were not included in Civ7. I was not a strong Civ6 player and rarely played above King and relied on Eurekas/Inspirations to stay close enough to the leading Civs in my games. However, as the game played on if I did not rectify my lack of science/culture then I would fall behind such that Eurekas/Inspirations would not help me.

I think the Eurekas/Inspirations have morphed into the narrative events. I miss the Eurekas/Inspirations because you could be more direct about which science/culture discoveries you pursued. It just allowed for another play style. They should bring them back for Civ7.

The Eurekas/Inspirations have also morphed into which Civs you can choose the next era. If you found 3 cities by mountains, it allows you switch to a certain civ at the start of a new era and so forth. I think their mistake was tethering Civ switching to eras. Civ switching should be allowed at any time with a "government upheaval" penalty making you play that civ switch a certain number of turns before you can change again while also allowing it during era changes. Otherwise, you should be able to keep who you started with.

 

[kotpeter]

Speaking of eurekas and inspirations, I often felt forced to do them because they just provided too much value to be ignored.

I'm not a very strong optimiser in civ 6 or civ 7, but I do optimise, and I find all things that railroad my optimisation path frustrating.

 

[Siptah]

Speaking of eurekas and inspirations, I often felt forced to do them because they just provided too much value to be ignored.

They forced you to do otherwise useless things, just like era points. To systems I really disliked for that. On the other hand, it makes sense that your actions and focuses have an impact on research/social development in related fields, but it would have to be more organically.

 

[Gorbles]

They forced you to do otherwise useless things, just like era points. To systems I really disliked for that. On the other hand, it makes sense that your actions and focuses have an impact on research/social development in related fields, but it would have to be more organically.

The problem you have is that any system that grants any kind of a bonus will eventually be optimised into either being a requirement, or superfluous. The best you can hope for is something that creates the least friction for the player. I found some Eurekas fine, or good even, and others more frustrating in that regard. There was too much of a gap between "doable with a bit of forward planning" and "I know I have to absolutely build in a certain way or I'm not going to really benefit from the Eureka at the time I want to".

And yet overall, I'm glad they were in. Player psychology is a pretty involved subject.

 

[Siptah]

The problem you have is that any system that grants any kind of a bonus will eventually be optimised into either being a requirement, or superfluous. The best you can hope for is something that creates the least friction for the player. I found some Eurekas fine, or good even, and others more frustrating in that regard. There was too much of a gap between "doable with a bit of forward planning" and "I know I have to absolutely build in a certain way or I'm not going to really benefit from the Eureka at the time I want to".

And yet overall, I'm glad they were in. Player psychology is a pretty involved subject.

Well, yeah, agreed. But there's a difference between build a single mine to get a 33% bonus instantly (which might be very strategic nonetheless), and for example each worked mine gives 1% discount per turn to a maximum of 33%.

 

[Gorbles]

Well, yeah, agreed. But there's a difference between build a single mine to get a 33% bonus instantly (which might be very strategic nonetheless), and for example each worked mine gives 1% discount per turn to a maximum of 33%.

That's what I mean. Having to build 33 mines (just as an example, I know the numbers are made-up) to get the "maximum" bonus will be optimised out of player strategy. While the one mine for an instant 33% bonus is a no-brainer.

 

[Siptah]

That's what I mean. Having to build 33 mines (just as an example, I know the numbers are made-up) to get the "maximum" bonus will be optimised out of player strategy. While the one mine for an instant 33% bonus is a no-brainer.

I meant an increase per worked mine per turn. It‘s still a no-brainer, but it requires a few turns if you intend to get the maximum effect. It‘s less gamey when there is no instant reward imho, and you can also decide whether it’s better to get the tech now with just a 20% boost or in two turns with. 33% boost. But this is detailing the thread, and it’s not even about civ 7.

 

[MutilationWave]

In 6, if I didn't get a slinger kill to boost archery then I just restarted the game. Not great. Now I wouldn't do this with later game eurekas.

 

[King Flevance]

I would like to see Civ pull away from your science output being focused on map adjacencies or eurekas. I would like to see it go back to being about how much you invest in science and science buildings. I would like a tax system again where I have to leverage investing in science, military maintenance, and happiness. Ideally, I would like governments to impact this and have different tax models. Perhaps even bring back civics instead of policies to make a customizable government.

I actually don't mind culture being more map dependent and actually think the notion of tourism is a great idea thematically for the game and it just kind of fits with the idea of the map influencing culture and tourism attraction. Additionally, I think production makes sense to have a connection to the map.