Playing as a Continuous Civ- A HUGE Mistake

[stealth_nsk]

True, much of this is going to be speculation, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss it.

True, but it should be taken into account when discussing it. A lot of people use numbers which exist only in their heads as hard facts.

I do think that based on this past year that there isn't much evidence that changes to the game such as bringing continuous civs will make a huge difference to player numbers. We've already had many steps backwards to try to align the game to some of the feedback the devs were getting and bring the game more in line to previous versions. Changes such as to unit placement at age reset, changes to crises, giving players more options to tweak the game to their preference.

None of it has brought players back, and I would suggest the reason is that these changes have not aligned to the core vision of what the game is meant to be, and often work against that original plan. The problem is that these changes have not actually improved the game, in many cases they make the game worse. I don't like Crises, but I don't turn them off any more because clearly the game was designed to have them in, taking them out just leaves a vacuum. I don't go to continuity mode in age resets because actually it doesn't really work that well in the flow of the game. Every time they try and backtrack it just makes the game worse.

So yes, this might all be a PR exercise, but the only way you truly get people back to playing this game is if the game is actually fun. Many of the changes they've made have hugely improved the game, and I'm confident they will get there, but it won't be by trying to placate people who I really don't think want to give the game a chance at all, and are dismissing it out of principle.

This brings us to points from other thread that simultaneous player numbers we see have very weak correlation with financial metrics which drive company decisions. The only information we had about real financial metrics are words from some 2K manager this summer who said that the game performs within LTV expectations. But many people on this forum discard those words as "corporate talk".

 

[Snowchild]

True, much of this is going to be speculation, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss it. I do think that based on this past year that there isn't much evidence that changes to the game such as bringing continuous civs will make a huge difference to player numbers. We've already had many steps backwards to try to align the game to some of the feedback the devs were getting and bring the game more in line to previous versions. Changes such as to unit placement at age reset, changes to crises, giving players more options to tweak the game to their preference.

None of it has brought players back, and I would suggest the reason is that these changes have not aligned to the core vision of what the game is meant to be, and often work against that original plan. The problem is that these changes have not actually improved the game, in many cases they make the game worse. I don't like Crises, but I don't turn them off any more because clearly the game was designed to have them in, taking them out just leaves a vacuum. I don't go to continuity mode in age resets because actually it doesn't really work that well in the flow of the game. Every time they try and backtrack it just makes the game worse.

So yes, this might all be a PR exercise, but the only way you truly get people back to playing this game is if the game is actually fun. Many of the changes they've made have hugely improved the game, and I'm confident they will get there, but it won't be by trying to placate people who I really don't think want to give the game a chance at all, and are dismissing it out of principle.

None of these changes brought players back because none of the changes went far enough in alleviating the problems that preventing many from enjoying or even being interested in the game. Which is fundamentally things like terrible ages system, mandatory civ swapping. and the mix matching of leaders/civs, which have turned away a large portion of the fanbase.

You keep insiting that these changes won't bring any one back, won't be fun, and game is getting worse for it but Firaxis isn't going back on their core vision for fun.... They're doing it because the game is a huge flop and they know part of the reason for that flop was the terrible reception to these changes. They want to earn back players, and potential customers back, and they know they can't and won't be able to do that by sticking to their failed vision. You keep insisting without any basis that these changes won't work, won't be fun, and the naysayers won't give it a chance anyway but there are several of us in this thread telling you that if Firaxis removed the things we don't like, we'd give the game try.....

 

[Snowchild]

True, but it should be taken into account when discussing it. A lot of people use numbers which exist only in their heads as hard facts.


This brings us to points from other thread that simultaneous player numbers we see have very weak correlation with financial metrics which drive company decisions. The only information we had about real financial metrics are words from some 2K manager this summer who said that the game performs within LTV expectations. But many people on this forum discard those words as "corporate talk".

That isn't what happened at all though. That 2K exec you're mentioning also admitted that game had a slow start and the title meeting their "performance expectations" were assumption about the game overall performance projections in the future/during it's lifetime, not its current sales figures. Something you seem to be ignoring entirely. Along with the fact that Firaxis admitted that the game's reception was poor in its devolopment diaries.

Again Firaxis is not walking back core game design choices because the game is an overwhelming success. Civ VII having half the player peak of its predessecor on its most popular platform, mixed/negative reviews, and less players than V is not what Firaxis or 2K wanted.

 

[disjointaccount]

A good many of those players they want to win over will already own the game.
Players like me. I have owned the deluxe edition from the start. I hate Civ switching and I hate the any leader can play any Civ crap.
But I am still playing, and am getting close to my Civ 5 hours played count now.
I want to see what they are going to do to win me over.

To the people making the decisions, you don't need to be "won over". By almost all metrics available, you're completely indistinguishable for their purposes from someone who bought the game and loves it.
The addition of a single-civ mode is (presumably) aimed at winning over people who haven't bought the game, because they were put off by switching and voted with their wallets. Bringing them around means a new wave of people buying the game, which means $$$ (and further $$$ if once they're in the door, they like it enough to stick around for DLC).

Those who didn't like the look of the game but bought it anyway are likely one of the least valuable groups, because the biggest chunk of money (cost of the base game) has already been had from them, and while there would likely be a desire to sell DLC to as many people as possible, that probably isn't even too much of a concern to a group with a track record of buying things they don't like anyway.

I'm not trying to be rude; it's just that the reality of how these decisions are made is that your money speaks far louder than any opinions on the game you voice. (I'd also suggest if you truly don't like it to just stop playing; when I pick up a game and hate it, I bounce off pretty quickly. I suspect you're either making yourself miserable forcing yourself to play for some reason, or having more fun than you realise, switching notwithstanding)

 

[McSpank01]

You keep insiting that these changes won't bring any one back, won't be fun, and game is getting worse for it but Firaxis isn't going back on their core vision for fun.... They're doing it because the game is a huge flop and they know part of the reason for that flop was the terrible reception to these changes.

The reason I keep saying that is the core vision for this game is clear built around distinct ages and the swapping of civs within those ages. Anything that tries to water that down or revert to a completely different gameplay model is going to fail, and we already have examples of them trying to water that model down and it has not worked.

What I anticipate happening is that they introduce the ability to have the same civ throughout all the ages, that civ will obviously have less interesting tools to play without outside of it's natural age and will therefore be much less interesting to play than those you get through civ switching. The crowd who have been crying for this option may come back temporarily (if they ever bought the game at all, which I kind of doubt), realise that actually this version of the game they asked for is even worse than the standard mode and then slink off back to the internet.

Civ Switching may be one reason why the game is not doing good numbers, but mostly I think that the reason is that the core gameplay loop of the game is not all that fun after the first age. There are many issues with ages and legacy paths that run far deeper than something as emotional as civ switching. The fact that 2/3rd of the ages are just grindy and boring has far more to do with the overall sense that this game isn't great IMO. I don't see any enthusiasm for this game from major influencers, youtubers or reviewers.. and very rarely do they cite civ switching as the reason for that. Mainly it's just that the game is not very fun and needs lots of work to it's UI and mechanics.

I suspect that if the game ever gets to the point of doing a 'Cyberpunk' or 'No Mans Sky' it will be because the devs fixed the the overall gameplay and the vibe shift was dramatic. It won't be because they introduce a lacklustre half assed mechanic like continuous civs.

 

[Krikkit1]

Yes there is a problem, not denying that. I just think they are wasting their time try to win over people who don't want to be won over.

Except some people Will be won over.*
Being able to play multiple “Layers” of America / Rome /Shawnee would be fun for many people…especially if they had the Choice of
-having those extra layers be semigeneric in other ages
OR
-having those extra layers get bonuses inspired by other civs (Rome going through its Modern or Mughal period)

Having the ability to go Mississippi-Shawnee-Shawnee or Rome-America-America would add to the fun and immersion of the game.


*Also, it’s not just who has bought the game or not…it’s who buys the DLC…which if you own the game but aren’t enjoying it much..means a likely DLC loss.


While the UI and game mechanics definitely need work, the ability to have a civ “out of age” is would add to enjoyment for a number of those who play/don’t play own/don’t own the game.

 

[McSpank01]

Being able to play multiple “Layers” of America / Rome /Shawnee would be fun for many people…especially if they had the Choice of

How would it be fun? Please explain. Ok I'm a modern age Rome.. and instead of playing as America or France or Britain, having lots of new UU and UB and unique playstyles to incorporate to my previous Rome layers.. now I have.. what? Maybe some sort of buffs to a yield? Is that the huge thing everyone is demanding from the game? Is that what is missing?

Or are you suggesting to add some fantasy units and buildings.. like Legions with guns?

Edit. Never mind, I misread your post and typed too fast. However I do think some people are thinking in the above way.

 

[stealth_nsk]

That isn't what happened at all though. That 2K exec you're mentioning also admitted that game had a slow start and the title meeting their "performance expectations" were assumption about the game overall performance projections in the future/during it's lifetime, not its current sales figures. Something you seem to be ignoring entirely. Along with the fact that Firaxis admitted that the game's reception was poor in its devolopment diaries.

Again Firaxis is not walking back core game design choices because the game is an overwhelming success. Civ VII having half the player peak of its predessecor on its most popular platform, mixed/negative reviews, and less players than V is not what Firaxis or 2K wanted.

He was spoken about LTV projections following expectations and yes, slow start. LTV is not "performance", it's the financial metric, actually it's THE financial metric, the one which defines product success. So, based on the words of the executive, there was a range of acceptable LTV results (as it usually is) and projected LTV based on data they have fits within this range, although likely at lower end.

 

[disjointaccount]

How would it be fun? Please explain. Ok I'm a modern age Rome.. and instead of playing as America or France or Britain, having lots of new UU and UB and unique playstyles to incorporate to my previous Rome layers.. now I have.. what? Maybe some sort of buffs to a yield? Is that the huge thing everyone is demanding from the game? Is that what is missing?

Or are you suggesting to add some fantasy units and buildings.. like Legions with guns?

Edit. Never mind, I misread your post and typed too fast. However I do think some people are thinking in the above way.

It's not really my thing personally but from the many, many times I've read and participated in this discussion at length since launch, it's clear that for some people, the appeal of Civ is in the immersion/roleplay of overseeing the story of an empire from the beginning of civilisation through to the modern day. For a lot of those people, having that empire collapse and be reborn as an ostensibly different empire multiple times breaks that fantasy, and with it, the fun of Civ.

For those people, I imagine the benefit of not having that disappointing collapse and rebirth to pull them out of their fantasy outweighs the downsides of civs being potentially less balanced across eras. Essentially, a lot of the drive behind a desire for a single-civ mode is more concerned with just the fundamental existence of a single-civ mode, rather than specific gameplay mechanics (though I'm sure everyone on all sides of it is still hoping that however single-civ is implemented, it's good!).

 

[aieeegrunt]

The discussion pretty pointlessly rotates around several totally unknow variables:

1. How many people don't buy the game mostly because of lack of civ switching (actually the number is totally unknown)
2. How many of those people will be satisfied enough with the solution, which Firaxis will come with, so those people will buy the game (the number is also unknow, but providing range of opinions around classic mode, it looks like a small share of the previous number)
3. How much work on this solution will hinder overall development (if it will be optional mode not requiring changes in civs, buildings, units, etc., it's probably not much, but with any of them, it could actually slow down the development)
4. Overall PR value of "listening to fans" in form of workshop in general and testing this feature in particular (could be worth it even if the feature itself will not bring any sales directly)

With all those unknowns, it's just throwing personal likes and dislikes around.

EDIT: 5. How much replayability this mode will bring to people who are content with or like civ switching (not discussed, but optional mode could actually bring additional value to those players as well - Civ6 ended with a lot of optional modes)

Ya I have to agree

If the current situation is financially viable, forget civ switching and polish what you have

If not, either write the game off or try a Classic Mode Hail Mary

Alright. But let's for a second image that it's possible.

Hypothetically, if the game is turned around without catering explicitly to those that hate "civ switching", what does that mean? If whatever they're planning at the moment doesn't satisfy the people who really hate, but the game recovers regardless, what does that mean?

It means I was wrong, and I’ll freely admit it.

 

[McSpank01]

It's not really my thing personally but from the many, many times I've read and participated in this discussion at length since launch, it's clear that for some people, the appeal of Civ is in the immersion/roleplay of overseeing the story of an empire from the beginning of civilisation through to the modern day. For a lot of those people, having that empire collapse and be reborn as an ostensibly different empire multiple times breaks that fantasy, and with it, the fun of Civ.

Sure. I understand the bone of contention with the idea that civ switching is a massive leap conceptually than what came before. What would a modern age Rome look like? We don’t know, maybe it would be like America or Britain? Maybe it would be more like the Ottomans? It just takes a little more imagination to get you to once place than another.

This might be where Leaders become the issue more than anything because it really is the face of your civ, and as mentioned higher up, the lack of options and ahistoric matching can be offputting. Even I feel that way.

For those people, I imagine the benefit of not having that disappointing collapse and rebirth to pull them out of their fantasy outweighs the downsides of civs being potentially less balanced across era

Ive had this conversation many times on this board and this is mainly the core complaint. It’s that players don’t want that huge black screen and being told you are now someone else. Really I think that says more about how ages are implemented than civ switching.

 

[Krikkit1]

Sure. I understand the bone of contention with the idea that civ switching is a massive leap conceptually than what came before. What would a modern age Rome look like? We don’t know, maybe it would be like America or Britain? Maybe it would be more like the Ottomans? It just takes a little more imagination to get you to once place than another.

This might be where Leaders become the issue more than anything because it really is the face of your civ, and as mentioned higher up, the lack of options and ahistoric matching can be offputting. Even I feel that way.

Ive had this conversation many times on this board and this is mainly the core complaint. It’s that players don’t want that huge black screen and being told you are now someone else. Really I think that says more about how ages are implemented than civ switching.

Having a huge black screen and then getting to Choose how you go on from here is a Good thing.

The issue is not enough Choice. If I can choose to become Mongols / Abbasids or stay America (because I got to start as America) and choose what Legacy bonuses my new Mongol or Abbasid or American empire has……

Then I think the black screen is Much less of a problem (still to much for some people, but Ages are much deeper in the game than civ switches)

There would still be civ switches…but one of the options would be “switch to the updated version of what I was” (and being able to start with a version ahead of time)

 

[Civinator]

I've never thought about things this way.

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

If you have the money to buy such a yacht, that you don´t like: yes.

 

[McSpank01]

The issue is not enough Choice. If I can choose to become Mongols / Abbasids or stay America (because I got to start as America) and choose what Legacy bonuses my new Mongol or Abbasid or American empire has……

Maybe, but then what is America in this scenario? What does Antiquity age America look like given that there is really no such thing? To me it just feels like a badge you are slapping on something.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

They're responding to feedback. It doesn't appear in the majority of Steam negative reviews - therefore it's a minority of the Steam negative reviews. However, it's still mentioned in a significant portion of them so why would they not react to that? The original vision of the game doesn't need to be compromised, and just because they're responding to feedback doesn't mean it's a U-turn, pivot, desperate or reacting to "poor sales or player numbers". If a significant amount of players are interested in retaining their original Civ throughout the ages, then they'd be stupid to ignore it. I'm happy they're going to do it, I'll be playing both the 'original vision' as well as the 'one Civ' mode. This game is going to have a very long life, any talk of "ending support" is senseless in my opinion. The game sold well enough, has enough players, and will only continue to sell more and grow more as time goes on - just like Civ V & VI. 9 months of continuous updates plus the commitment of continuous updates leading into next year with the "Firaxis Feature Workshop" does not indicate support ending in any way, shape or form.

 

[Krikkit1]

Maybe, but then what is America in this scenario? What does Antiquity age America look like given that there is really no such thing? To me it just feels like a badge you are slapping on something.

In that case America is

…at a MINIMUM. a name/symbol/graphic style/city list
…hopefully also a set of bonuses based on attributes (ie “Exploration America” gets the Exploration Expansionist and/or* Exploration Economic bonuses)

*and / or depending on how they implement it.

 

[McSpank01]

In that case America is

…at a MINIMUM. a name/symbol/graphic style/city list
…hopefully also a set of bonuses based on attributes (ie “Exploration America” gets the Exploration Expansionist and/or* Exploration Economic bonuses)

*and / or depending on how they implement it.

I think this is where the idea just totally loses me.

Essentially it's boiling down your civ to a name and a badge.. and maybe one small age specific bonus (though it would probably need to be generalised across all the ages, so just one bonus across all 3, because there is no such thing as Antiquity America)

I honestly cannot get my head around the idea that people would not play Civ 7 because they don't have the ability to play the above way. I find it completely baffling. This version of the game vs 3 distinct layers that are built upon each other into a coherent end game, I just don't see what the appeal is.

The argument that 'I just want to play as America' across all 3 ages just doesn't land for me either. You could do that, it's just that instead you are taking a native route or maybe a European route to visualise what that looks like. In the end then, it really just comes down a name and a badge.

 

[Dedrytus]

I'm having big trouble with imagination when people mention modern America. Because it's logical that it should go this way: Rome-France (Spain, Portugal)-any modern country in south or north America. All native Americans should have end in exploration era, unfortunately.

 

[McSpank01]

I'm having big trouble with imagination when people mention modern America. Because it's logical that it should go this way: Rome-France (Spain, Portugal)-any modern country in south or north America. All native Americans should have end in exploration era, unfortunately.

I guess the point is if you play as a native american faction, your modern civ will be say, modern america, but it already has a number of cultural and architectural artefacts from the previous ages. If you also picked say Tecumseh as your leader then you have even more flavour. Honestly I find that far more satisfying narratively and more representative of a native american civ than the really gamey versions of Civs presented in previous games.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think this is where the idea just totally loses me.

Essentially it's boiling down your civ to a name and a badge.. and maybe one small age specific bonus (though it would probably need to be generalised across all the ages, so just one bonus across all 3, because there is no such thing as Antiquity America)

I honestly cannot get my head around the idea that people would not play Civ 7 because they don't have the ability to play the above way. I find it completely baffling. This version of the game vs 3 distinct layers that are built upon each other into a coherent end game, I just don't see what the appeal is.

The argument that 'I just want to play as America' across all 3 ages just doesn't land for me either. You could do that, it's just that instead you are taking a native route or maybe a European route to visualise what that looks like. In the end then, it really just comes down a name and a badge.

The name and the badge are important.
Thats why we have science and gold and not “factor 1” and “factor 2”
That’s why they are infantry and cavalry and not “mobile element A” and “mobilie element B”

That’s why it’s called Civilization VII and not Spreadsheets 7.0

Gameplay is also important (which is why semigeneric bonuses for civs out of age would be good, and why they need to continue to improve standard gameplay and not put too much effort into getting individual unique bonuses for out of age civs)