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.

 

[aieeegrunt]

They are’nt running scared from online voices or being swayed by a vocal minority or other such denial, they are looking at the sales and playercount and realizing there is a problem

 

[McSpank01]

They are’nt running scared from online voices or being swayed by a vocal minority or other such denial, they are looking at the sales and playercount and realizing there is a problem

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.

 

[0urBall]

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.

But that may be the only way to increase sales, which is something that 2K, moreso than Firaxis possibly, value above all else.
The cynic in me also notes that these proposed "popular" changes come quite close to the announcement that GTA is delayed. Again

 

[Smegger213]

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.

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.

 

[stealth_nsk]

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)

 

[Crashdummy]

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)

I dont think Firaxis would be doing this, or even trying to smooth Ages, if that would be the case

About what they are implementing not being what i want, i can guarantee you 100% it wont be what i want, because what i want takes a lot of effort. But i will try it, and maybe even when its not 100% what i want, it ends up being fun, which to me Civ 7 isnt

 

[Gedemon]

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?

player numbers, maybe not, buyer numbers surely, so depending of the numbers they look at, they may choose different options.

 

[Gorbles]

I dont think Firaxis would be doing this, or even trying to smooth Ages, if that would be the case

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?

 

[Kumbao]

I'm not reading through the entire thread, but I am one of those persons who didnt buy the game yet because of the mandatory civ switching. If Firaxis wants to reach people like me (I am not alone), then this is the right step. I seriously dont understand , why some people are so opposed to it, but it is becoming ridiculozs. Civ 7 is failing. This is the only way to have a chance of changing that. And that is a fact.

 

[zerokarma]

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.

They don't have the luxury of discarding the unhappy people because they want to stick to their vision. You can argue for whatever reason but it's clear it is commercially under performing and Take Two will force them to do something or they would bring in new people that would, Friaxis has no choice at this point.

 

[McSpank01]

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)

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.