Playing One civ through the Ages

[luca 83]

the end of a leader is also important for a historical narrative: how did he die a natural death ? killed? exiled? change the historical perspective and create more historical depth . even the popular consensus he had is important to history in general

 

[dan-the-man278]

Personally, I 100% agree with Potato McWhiskey's recent video in which he said that adding one civ through the ages is "a capitulation." It feels like we are a tiny, shouted-down minority but I actively enjoy civ switching and was hoping that they would put in that development time and resources into fine-tuning this, and making the best version of Civ 7 we can possibly get - not a throwback to Civ 6.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Personally, I 100% agree with Potato McWhiskey's recent video in which he said that adding one civ through the ages is "a capitulation." It feels like we are a tiny, shouted-down minority but I actively enjoy civ switching and was hoping that they would put in that development time and resources into fine-tuning this, and making the best version of Civ 7 we can possibly get - not a throwback to Civ 6.

1. The feeling of "tiny, shouted-down minority" is clearly artificial. Based on polls, people who like civ switching were just as common as those who don't even when Civ7 was in much worse state and even among old-time fans like on this site.
2. It's more a marketing trick than capitulation. Ages will clearly not go anywhere (the wording was pretty specific) and civ switching will remain primary mode. Whatever optional mode to play single civ Firaxis will end up with, the majority of anti-switching crowd will not be satisfied
3. That's one of the reason why this feature goes through community testing. When the final option will come out and people will see that it's very far from "classic mode" they imagined (each imagined different one, though), the responsibility will be split between Firaxis and players who tested them

 

[Kumbao]

1. The feeling of "tiny, shouted-down minority" is clearly artificial. Based on polls, people who like civ switching were just as common as those who don't even when Civ7 was in much worse state and even among old-time fans like on this site.
2. It's more a marketing trick than capitulation. Ages will clearly not go anywhere (the wording was pretty specific) and civ switching will remain primary mode. Whatever optional mode to play single civ Firaxis will end up with, the majority of anti-switching crowd will not be satisfied
3. That's one of the reason why this feature goes through community testing. When the final option will come out and people will see that it's very far from "classic mode" they imagined (each imagined different one, though), the responsibility will be split between Firaxis and players who tested them

No, the feeling is not artificial. Those polls are heöd at places were people still are interested in Civilization. Those people usually are at least not opposed to the civ switching mechanic. Rather Firaxis should ask people who did not buy the game why they didnt. And civ switching will be one of the main reasons.

I can safely say that I will not buy Civ 7 with mandatory civ switching. If you guys love that mechanic, all power to you. But you are a minority, no matter how hard you try to switch the narrative.

Face it. Civ 7 has a huge problem. And if they want to win those people over who did not buy the game, civ switching has to go and the ages system has to be watered down until its practically not there anymore. And I dint understand why you guys are so opposed to the idea that people get the option to enjoy civ 7 as well. It is childish and unneccessary. And again, it is plaun wrong to stick to the narrative that "nobody minds civ switching" and "Civ 7 is a success. Look, this week only 49% of the people who left a review hated it". It is becoming tiresome to discuss with yoz since you will bend facts and arguments like you are Mr Fantastic in order to convince anybody (I guess maunly yourself at this point) that everything is fine with Cuv 7.

It is not. And at least Firaxis knows this. And acts accordingly. And that means mandatory civ switchibg has to go. Plain and simple.

 

[Gorbles]

But you are a minority, no matter how hard you try to switch the narrative.

I think, factually, "divisive" is going to be the best you get. Trying to insist on some kind of factual majority / minority when reviews are split at around 50% (which, to be clear: not great!), and that even within that 50% there will be some percentage split on other issues (Chinese players upset with representation, crashing / stability issues, UX / UI, and so on), is a poor argument.

I get that it makes it easier to "shout down" anyone belonging to a specific demographic, but that isn't really useful or constructive discussion, imo.

 

[stealth_nsk]

No, the feeling is not artificial. Those polls are heöd at places were people still are interested in Civilization. Those people usually are at least not opposed to the civ switching mechanic. Rather Firaxis should ask people who did not buy the game why they didnt. And civ switching will be one of the main reasons.

That's a very specific point of view. People come to this forum to complain about civ switching and you somehow find it not representative?

I'd say it's the other way around - those polls show much more complains about civ switching than in overall player base, because 100% of tgose complains are coming from old players, while Civ7 has a lot of new players as well.

I can safely say that I will not buy Civ 7 with mandatory civ switching. If you guys love that mechanic, all power to you. But you are a minority, no matter how hard you try to switch the narrative.

That's cool wording trick. You're not buying the game, which makes others a minority? How many millions of game copies you usually buy?

Face it. Civ 7 has a huge problem. And if they want to win those people over who did not buy the game, civ switching has to go and the ages system has to be watered down until its practically not there anymore.

Civ7 has has problems with hasted release. It also has problems with divided fanbase. But the solutions you're proposing has nothing to do with them.

And I dint understand why you guys are so opposed to the idea that people get the option to enjoy civ 7 as well. It is childish and unneccessary.

Right in the previous sentences you proposed breaking enjoyment for those wgo like the game already.

If we speak about accepting reality, ages system is so core to Civ7, that it's impossible to root out or significantly water down. That's the reality.

And I don't oppose the option to play as one civilization, I'm all for it. Just be realistic and don't expect some radical gameplay changes. Most likely it will be something simple like renaming or playing two ages without bonuses.

And again, it is plaun wrong to stick to the narrative that "nobody minds civ switching" and "Civ 7 is a success.

Where have you seen that narrative?

 

[UWHabs]

It was inevitable that they would want something of a continuation mode where you can play the same civ. Whether it's a majority or a minority, who knows, but it's fairly obviously a significant enough proportion to put effort into it.

The big question for me going forward is which version is the one that the main balance will revolve around? I know like the current options they'll save your default, but are we to expect that civs will be more balanced when you play them through the ages, or will that mode always be the secondary mode, where civs will work outside of their age but might not really make the most of their abilities? If they try to make sure things are balanced in that mode, that might severely impact what they can and will do with civs in the other mode. But at the same time, if that clearly stays as sort of a tacked on alternate, will that appease people who don't like the switching?

 

[Gorbles]

It was inevitable that they would want something of a continuation mode where you can play the same civ. Whether it's a majority or a minority, who knows, but it's fairly obviously a significant enough proportion to put effort into it.

The big question for me going forward is which version is the one that the main balance will revolve around? I know like the current options they'll save your default, but are we to expect that civs will be more balanced when you play them through the ages, or will that mode always be the secondary mode, where civs will work outside of their age but might not really make the most of their abilities? If they try to make sure things are balanced in that mode, that might severely impact what they can and will do with civs in the other mode. But at the same time, if that clearly stays as sort of a tacked on alternate, will that appease people who don't like the switching?

I think based on the addition of the Continuity Transition, as well as keeping Regroup and hinting at Collapse, given that we've seen new content and changes apply to both of the existing settings, the groundwork is being set for a variety of player options being catered for.

Whew. That was a longer sentence than I wanted My hope is that given how core Transitions seem to be to the structure of VII, that they will keep on receiving active attention throughout the post-launch lifespan of the game. However long that is.

The same goes for any "play as your own civ" option. We don't know how that's going to work out yet. All we know is that they're experimenting with it.

And regardless, there are people that will not like it regardless of the outcome. That's always going to be the case. We're not going to know more for sure until we know more about what they're planning, but from the language used, it doesn't seem to be that Transitions are going away. So whatever any given player means by a "classic" experience is probably not going to happen. In my opinion, anyhow.

 

[ColtSeavers]

1. The feeling of "tiny, shouted-down minority" is clearly artificial. Based on polls, people who like civ switching were just as common as those who don't even when Civ7 was in much worse state and even among old-time fans like on this site.
2. It's more a marketing trick than capitulation. Ages will clearly not go anywhere (the wording was pretty specific) and civ switching will remain primary mode. Whatever optional mode to play single civ Firaxis will end up with, the majority of anti-switching crowd will not be satisfied
3. That's one of the reason why this feature goes through community testing. When the final option will come out and people will see that it's very far from "classic mode" they imagined (each imagined different one, though), the responsibility will be split between Firaxis and players who tested them

How much longer do you want to spin the narrative that Civ Switching is popular, when even Firaxis acknowledges that they need an alternative for this mechanic? I’ve said it before: A classic mode is actually fairly easy to implement, if they don't get sidetracked by trying to incorporate unnecessary noise, like perfectly balanced leader bonuses and so forth. If Firaxis had done this from the start, the player count would likely be much higher by now. In your words, it was more the "anti-classic mode crowd" who tried to spin the narrative that a classic mode would be too complicated and not worth the effort. This led them to believe that Civ Switching would be a great success within the community. After all, this isn’t a marketing trick, but their last best chance to save this game. With the current player count, it will be very difficult, if not almost impossible, for them to have successful DLCs going forward!

 

[Evie]

No, the feeling is not artificial. Those polls are heöd at places were people still are interested in Civilization. Those people usually are at least not opposed to the civ switching mechanic. Rather Firaxis should ask people who did not buy the game why they didnt. And civ switching will be one of the main reasons.

I can safely say that I will not buy Civ 7 with mandatory civ switching. If you guys love that mechanic, all power to you. But you are a minority, no matter how hard you try to switch the narrative.

Face it. Civ 7 has a huge problem. And if they want to win those people over who did not buy the game, civ switching has to go and the ages system has to be watered down until its practically not there anymore. And I dint understand why you guys are so opposed to the idea that people get the option to enjoy civ 7 as well. It is childish and unneccessary. And again, it is plaun wrong to stick to the narrative that "nobody minds civ switching" and "Civ 7 is a success. Look, this week only 49% of the people who left a review hated it". It is becoming tiresome to discuss with yoz since you will bend facts and arguments like you are Mr Fantastic in order to convince anybody (I guess maunly yourself at this point) that everything is fine with Cuv 7.

It is not. And at least Firaxis knows this. And acts accordingly. And that means mandatory civ switchibg has to go. Plain and simple.

"Trust me bro, *I* speak for the majority" sure is a credible claim that has never, ever, ever indicated a grossly overinflated perception of one's own opinions, nor a deliberate attempt to use the alleged majority to silence or dismiss other opinions.

Slow clap, my man. Slow clap.

 

[stealth_nsk]

How much longer do you want to spin the narrative that Civ Switching is popular, when even Firaxis acknowledges that they need an alternative for this mechanic?

That's not that I said. I literally said that divided fanbase is Civ7 problem. It's just important to not ignore both sides of the divide. Any proposals which suppose breaking the current gameplay seem to ignore that more than 50% of recent reviews are positive (not to mention that civilization switching is not the main point of Civ7 criticism).

I’ve said it before: A classic mode is actually fairly easy to implement, if they don't get sidetracked by trying to incorporate unnecessary noise, like perfectly balanced leader bonuses and so forth. If Firaxis had done this from the start, the player count would likely be much higher by now. In your words, it was more the "anti-classic mode crowd" who tried to spin the narrative that a classic mode would be too complicated and not worth the effort. This led them to believe that Civ Switching would be a great success within the community. After all, this isn’t a marketing trick, but their last best chance to save this game. With the current player count, it will be very difficult, if not almost impossible, for them to have successful DLCs going forward!

As always, it depends on the definition of classic mode, I didn't see any agreement on this in the first place. It's a range of solutions. Letting people play the same civ just without bonuses in non-native era is very easy to implement. Smoothing ages to level of Civ6 is equal to creating new game (I've already made some lists why it is so - with things like masteries not working with single tech/civic trees, 2-building districts only working with overbuilding, etc.).

But not only this, somewhere in between there's a point beyond which it's possible to transform the game, but practically impossible to maintain both versions. That area starts somewhere at the point where you need total rebalance of civs and leaders (not to mention buildings and units) for new mode to work. And I believe it's unrealistic to expect from Firaxis to go into this area. I don't believe they'll abandon their current approach (and working on collapse mode is a proof), so I'd adjust expectations.

 

[Gorbles]

I’ve said it before: A classic mode is actually fairly easy to implement, if they don't get sidetracked by trying to incorporate unnecessary noise, like perfectly balanced leader bonuses and so forth.

Setting aside any technical effort required, "a classic mode is easy if they implement it exactly as I'm okay with them implementing it" is kind of part of the problem.

Do you assume that a majority of people who want any kind of classic mode would be happy with your compromises? What data do you have to support this?

 

[UWHabs]

Setting aside any technical effort required, "a classic mode is easy if they implement it exactly as I'm okay with them implementing it" is kind of part of the problem.

Do you assume that a majority of people who want any kind of classic mode would be happy with your compromises? What data do you have to support this?

We had the thread on here. The "classic mode in name but you get nothing out of your era" was not very well received.

Which is really the problem. Some people are more than happy to just keep their civ, have no bonuses, and live on like that. Others basically want a full stack of uniques in every era. Some people are happy with Rome playing with Hawaii bonuses when they hit exploration era. It's going to be a pretty no-win situation for the devs whatever strategy they opt for.

 

[stealth_nsk]

We had the thread on here. The "classic mode in name but you get nothing out of your era" was not very well received.

Which is really the problem. Some people are more than happy to just keep their civ, have no bonuses, and live on like that. Others basically want a full stack of uniques in every era. Some people are happy with Rome playing with Hawaii bonuses when they hit exploration era. It's going to be a pretty no-win situation for the devs whatever strategy they opt for.

That's why most likely developers will just throw several simple solutions into testing and add the winner to the game as "community choice".

 

[Krikkit1]

We had the thread on here. The "classic mode in name but you get nothing out of your era" was not very well received.

Which is really the problem. Some people are more than happy to just keep their civ, have no bonuses, and live on like that. Others basically want a full stack of uniques in every era. Some people are happy with Rome playing with Hawaii bonuses when they hit exploration era. It's going to be a pretty no-win situation for the devs whatever strategy they opt for.

I think it’s simple enough to give people a choice

In a standard game Each Age you choose
-What you want your civ named (from any age)
-one of a set of bonuses that you have unlocked …either from an age appropriate civ OR based on the attributes of your civ name.


For extreme “all age civ”, they could add

an Explicitly Unbalanced game mode where all of a civs uniques are present in every age.
Some of them will be inactive (ie Maurya’s UA does nothing outside of Antiquity, no Treasure Convoys outside of Exploration, Conquistadors can’t be activated in Antiquity, etc.)
Some will be imbalanced (Maya UQ on most of your settlements, Bulgaria UA in Modern, etc)
Some things would be strange (need to reresearch civics each age…but only for the bonuses+UI unlocks…you got the Traditions in Antiquity.)

But that might work as a different game mode. As long as they have the first part in a regular game (can choose name, can choose semigeneric bonuses)

 

[Crashdummy]

Personally, I 100% agree with Potato McWhiskey's recent video in which he said that adding one civ through the ages is "a capitulation." It feels like we are a tiny, shouted-down minority but I actively enjoy civ switching and was hoping that they would put in that development time and resources into fine-tuning this, and making the best version of Civ 7 we can possibly get - not a throwback to Civ 6.

They tried that for over 6 months, and numbers just stagnated on a very low place

Civ 7 is not sustainable with 6.5k average concurrent players on Steam

They need the players that Civ switching left out

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think it’s simple enough to give people a choice

In a standard game Each Age you choose
-What you want your civ named (from any age)
-one of a set of bonuses that you have unlocked …either from an age appropriate civ OR based on the attributes of your civ name.


For extreme “all age civ”, they could add

an Explicitly Unbalanced game mode where all of a civs uniques are present in every age.
Some of them will be inactive (ie Maurya’s UA does nothing outside of Antiquity, no Treasure Convoys outside of Exploration, Conquistadors can’t be activated in Antiquity)
Some will be imbalanced (Maya UQ on most of your settlements)
Some things would be strange (need to reresearch civics each age…but only for the bonuses+UI unlocks…you got the Traditions in Antiquity.)

But that might work as a different game mode.

I wouldn't expect extremely unbalanced mode as official one. I think we'll see "pick your bonus while keeping civ/settlement name" and "have bonuses only in relevant age" in playtest. The latter could have variant with generic bonuses for other ages based on the civilization attributes, for example.

But yes, I agree that that's the range of expected options.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

They tied that for over 6 months, and numbers just stagnated on a very low place

Civ 7 is not sustainable with 6.5k average concurrent players on Steam

They need the players that Civ switching left out

Numbers stagnating or declining in the first year of a game is completely normal. 6.5k on Steam, how many on other platforms? Civ VI was at 14-16k at this point only being released on Steam while being more affordable and having more sales at a higher discount.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

2. You can choose to have a civ "out of age" where it will get a set of semi-generic bonuses
Antiquity America will get the Antiquity Economic and Antiquity Expansionist bonuses (as would Antiquity Inca... they would have same gameplay for Antiquity but Different Graphics... and start Biases)
Antiquity Songhai would get the Antiquity Economic and Antiquity Military bonuses (so they would be a little bit like Antiquity America)

I think the attribute bonuses could serve this function. You could give an out-of-age civ extra attribute bonuses. So for example, if you pick France, you get 2 free attribute bonuses in the Antiquity Age and Exploration Age. If you pick Rome, you get 2 extra attribute bonuses in the Exploration and Modern Age.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Setting aside any technical effort required, "a classic mode is easy if they implement it exactly as I'm okay with them implementing it" is kind of part of the problem.

Do you assume that a majority of people who want any kind of classic mode would be happy with your compromises? What data do you have to support this?

Kind of funny how the spin has shifted from “only a very vocal minority dislikes Civ Switching” to “you can’t please everybody who dislikes it, so it’s not even worth trying.” Based on that logic, why was Civ Switching invented in the first place? According to this poll, more than 80% of respondents dislike one or more aspects of Civ Switching in its current form. Some prefer more historically grounded transitions, while others want more freedom of choice. So obviously you can’t please everyone, but it still got implemented anyway! So what’s the big problem with giving a Classical Mode a shot, even if it doesn’t fit everyone’s needs perfectly?

We had the thread on here. The "classic mode in name but you get nothing out of your era" was not very well received.

I doubt this very much, can you link this thread or did you just make this up?