Playing as a Continuous Civ- A HUGE Mistake

[ColtSeavers]

The reason I think it’s wasted effort is because it only makes sense if those players who don’t play because of civ switching suddenly like the game and decide to stick around. I seriously doubt that will happen, mainly as I don’t think they are up for giving the game a chance anyway, and bigger issues like ages will always be a barrier.

I think a lot of the anger over switching is emotional, really you tend to keep so much from your previous civ that it’s nowhere near as big a change as some people like to make out. So I don’t really think anyone who is so angry at civ switching have actually been open minded about it.

Really I don’t see any difference between playing as Rome into the Middle Ages or switching to say the Normans, given it all feels kinda similar anyway.

I also just think continuous civs is going to suck as a mechanic, it cannot be fun with the way ages work. It might have been ok in previous games but I don’t see how it can be good in 7

I'm afraid you're the one who is not open-minded here. Just look at the various polls, playing stats, or reviews, and you'll see that your assessment is all emotion and no facts!

 

[Snowchild]

I'm afraid you're the one who is not open-minded here. Just look at the various polls, playing stats, or reviews, and you'll see that your assessment is all emotion and no facts!

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.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I am pleased too, as I save much more money in not buying that game and its expansions and DLCs

I've never thought about things this way.

I've saved half a million dollars today by not buying a yacht.

 

[Krikkit1]

I've never thought about things this way.

I've saved half a million dollars today by not buying a yacht.

Rookie numbers…I haven’t declared war irl on up to 200 different countries, saving trillions.

 

[Ellye]

I don't like Civ-Switching, I want to play a single civilization throughout the entire game.
And yet, I fully agree with the OP. In fact, this is exact something I had posted months ago:

- The devs should focus on improving Civ7 for the people that like Civ7. So that those people will stay around, buy all the DLC, and their positive impressions will attract a few more over time. Just make peace with the fact that Civ7 won't be as big as Civ5 or Civ6, but it can still be a success of a smaller scale if they keep at it.

- Trying to divert their attention into attracting back people like me is a waste of effort. No matter how many band-aids they place over the civ switching and era systems, the game was designed with those features at its core. It will never be enough to attract me back, and I'm sure this will be the same for most of the players that haven't enjoyed Civ7 because of that. Wasting time and effort on this will diminish the game for the people that enjoy it, which will lead to losing players instead of gaining players.

So, I agree: stop wasting effort trying to win over people that don't like Civ7. It won't succeed, and you'll most likely end up losing the people that do enjoy Civ7.

 

[Crashdummy]

I don't like Civ-Switching, I want to play a single civilization throughout the entire game.
And yet, I fully agree with the OP. In fact, this is exact something I had posted months ago:

- The devs should focus on improving Civ7 for the people that like Civ7. So that those people will stay around, buy all the DLC, and their positive impressions will attract a few more over time. Just make peace with the fact that Civ7 won't be as big as Civ5 or Civ6, but it can still be a success of a smaller scale if they keep at it.

- Trying to divert their attention into attracting back people like me is a waste of effort. No matter how many band-aids they place over the civ switching and era systems, the game was designed with those features at its core. It will never be enough to attract me back, and I'm sure this will be the same for most of the players that haven't enjoyed Civ7 because of that. Wasting time and effort on this will diminish the game for the people that enjoy it, which will lead to losing players instead of gaining players.

So, I agree: stop wasting effort trying to win over people that don't like Civ7. It won't succeed, and you'll most likely end up losing the people that do enjoy Civ7.

Your post assumes they can sustain the development of Civ 7 with the current player numbers, which in my opinion they cant

So if the option is between discarding Civ 7 future development because it isnt sustainable or try to get more players by adding continous civ, what would you choose?

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

The lesson here is that every Civ game is the worst game in the history of mankind, until it isn't...

 

[Gorbles]

Your post assumes they can sustain the development of Civ 7 with the current player numbers, which in my opinion they cant

So if the option is between discarding Civ 7 future development because it isnt sustainable or try to get more players by adding continous civ, what would you choose?

What if you're wrong, and VII can be sustained (and grown, even)?

If that seems too unbelievable for you to imagine, how about: let's say whatever they're experimenting with isn't what you want, but proves popular enough with the wider community.

Hypothetically.

(it's kinda a moot point because they're exploring ways to retain a single civilisation, but your assumption is that VII in its current form can't be sustained, so, why not explore that a bit)

 

[McSpank01]

I don't like Civ-Switching, I want to play a single civilization throughout the entire game.
And yet, I fully agree with the OP. In fact, this is exact something I had posted months ago:

- The devs should focus on improving Civ7 for the people that like Civ7. So that those people will stay around, buy all the DLC, and their positive impressions will attract a few more over time. Just make peace with the fact that Civ7 won't be as big as Civ5 or Civ6, but it can still be a success of a smaller scale if they keep at it.

- Trying to divert their attention into attracting back people like me is a waste of effort. No matter how many band-aids they place over the civ switching and era systems, the game was designed with those features at its core. It will never be enough to attract me back, and I'm sure this will be the same for most of the players that haven't enjoyed Civ7 because of that. Wasting time and effort on this will diminish the game for the people that enjoy it, which will lead to losing players instead of gaining players.

So, I agree: stop wasting effort trying to win over people that don't like Civ7. It won't succeed, and you'll most likely end up losing the people that do enjoy Civ7.

I agree on this. But I would frame it to say that the devs should be sticking to their vision of how they want this game to work, rather than running scared from online voices and backtracking. Their aim should be to make the initial vision of Civ 7, with Ages and Civ Switching, make that work so that it is fun, coherent and tactical. The problems are less to do with the basic idea of the game, and more to do with the implementation.

I think they have already made big strides towards improving the gameplay, to the point where mechanics I just thought were dull and not impactful, now become interesting. Simple changes to the cost of buildings and cities have massively overhauled how you play the game, and made me realise there is something much better in there than I imagined.

The real issue with Civ 7 is that it is basically an early release game, in Beta that is being fixed 1-2 years after release. There are too many poorly thought out and quickly implemented systems in the game at this point and those need to be fixed for the game to ever succeed.

What is going to get players coming back to the game is when there is a consensus that the game is now good, when youtubers are regularly streaming the game and when there is this overall positive buzz. I think the reason there isn't a buzz is because the game just isn't that fun to play during large stretches. That isn't to do with Civ Switching. Sure there are people out there who outright hate the game on principle because they are attached to a fictional game faction that they want to stick with, but I think the problems with the game are much broader.


What I'm saying is, I think the devs are trying to appease a group of people who can never be appeased. They don't want to like the game, they are not ever coming back just because they got their way. They could introduce continuous civs tomorrow and you might see player numbers jump up for a day or two, but fall down again as soon as they realise it doesn't make the game fun, it might even be a worse experience. It's totally wasted effort.