[Vanilla] Under 40% of players have won a game (from Steam global achievements)

[Ferocitus]

? The UI is a core game feature and an absolute foundation of user experience. If you have none at all, you literally can't play. Beyond that extreme, the UI is among the top reasons players don't finish games...the reason this debate came up in this thread. It might not be the top reason, but it might be. When you play 100's of turns > minute/turn for many of them on bad UI adds up, fast.

The game not ending close to when it's over was identified as a problem, and this is a part of the game that is objectively putting hours between those two things compared to a good UI. Complaints about "pacing" are also tied to this in part.

Your putative changes to the UI might suit your play style better, but you have
no idea whether it would be suitable for the many other ways of playing the
game, or whether it would be better for absolute novices, or for players moving
over from Civ 5, or me.

The UI suits the games I play, and it certainly doesn't slow me down. I play
at marathon pace against 25+ other civs on ludicrous size maps. An extra click
or two is insignificant compared to the times taken by other parts of the game.

The UI is also more than acceptable to hundreds of thousands of other players.

IMO, Firaxis recognise that their vanilla UI might not be the best for everyone,
so they made it moddable. If they wanted to force one UI on everyone they
could easily have locked it into place permanently.

If the UI doesn't suit you, then write one for yourself, or avail yourself of
the others on offer. I don't accept that you know what is the best for all
players, all the different styles of playing Civ, and for all time, irrespective
of what innovations are in the pipeline.

 

[hdbhdbvGFG541]

Your putative changes to the UI might suit your play style better, but you have
no idea whether it would be suitable for the many other ways of playing the
game, or whether it would be better for absolute novices, or for players moving
over from Civ 5, or me.

The UI suits the games I play, and it certainly doesn't slow me down. I play
at marathon pace against 25+ other civs on ludicrous size maps. An extra click
or two is insignificant compared to the times taken by other parts of the game.

The UI is also more than acceptable to hundreds of thousands of other players.

IMO, Firaxis recognise that their vanilla UI might not be the best for everyone,
so they made it moddable. If they wanted to force one UI on everyone they
could easily have locked it into place permanently.

If the UI doesn't suit you, then write one for yourself, or avail yourself of
the others on offer. I don't accept that you know what is the best for all
players, all the different styles of playing Civ, and for all time, irrespective
of what innovations are in the pipeline.

Why are you defending having less features in terms of ui?I don't understand this behavior?
Having less features and paying more money is insanity.
And having a simple thing like a queue is something basic 4x games had for years.

I just want to know why people defend this?

 

[Lord_Azazel]

Considering that I've played for thousands of hours in the last 15 years, I can still count all the games I've finished on my two hands. So, no, I think almost 40% is quite a lot actually.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Your putative changes to the UI might suit your play style better, but you have
no idea whether it would be suitable for the many other ways of playing the
game, or whether it would be better for absolute novices, or for players moving
over from Civ 5, or me.

At worst, it is strictly neutral. There is no demonstrable downside to making the city list sortable or allowing changes from that menu for example. Same thing for queues, waypoints, and fewer inputs to accomplish the same task with identical game presentation.

Meanwhile, UI lying to the player about what will happen when right-clicking, failing to buffer inputs, and broken unit cycling are all things that could easily deter "absolute novices", same with hiding the rules in a strategy game (the UI objectively fails to provide game rules anywhere in-game for multiple mechanics, to the point where several non-Firaxis employed posters here are consistently more reliable for information than the developers. For companies functioning well that isn't possible).

If I'm mistaken consider this an opportunity to actually demonstrate why that is.

An extra click
or two is insignificant compared to the times taken by other parts of the game.

Spreading 2-3 hours per game over 30+ hour campaigns is less noticeable than spreading it over a 3 hour campaign, but those 2-3 hours are still there.

The UI is also more than acceptable to hundreds of thousands of other players.

Allegedly, but then we get complaints about game pace, finish rates below typical game baselines, and comments about how late game is "a slog". These complaints are directly or in part attributable to UI, despite that said posters seldom talk about that as the reason. Adding 50% more game length on UI alone will do that.

IMO, Firaxis recognise that their vanilla UI might not be the best for everyone,
so they made it moddable. If they wanted to force one UI on everyone they
could easily have locked it into place permanently.

What is quoted here is not a credible statement. I'm calling it out for the silliness of the alleged "forcing", as if my suggestions would somehow tangibly affect players who don't use these standard UI features to good titles over the last 20 years.

I don't accept that you know what is the best for all
players, all the different styles of playing Civ

That's a lot of straw.

• When I claim something is a strict improvement, I'd welcome demonstration as to why the notion is mistaken (note that such hasn't actually happened yet, or even been attempted).
  
• When I haven't, I don't see where the notion that I claim to "know what is best for all players" is originating.

Programming the game is the developer's job, not the users. We have poor UI elements and objectively broken UI elements (depending on the issue in question). The developers should fix them. Fixing unit cycling or avoiding the UI lying to players is not the realm of mods.

I just want to know why people defend this?

Motivations vary person to person. Much more important than the motivation, however, is the lack of coherent reasoning presented in the defense.

 

[steveg700]

Why are you defending having less features in terms of ui?I don't understand this behavior?
Having less features and paying more money is insanity.
And having a simple thing like a queue is something basic 4x games had for years.

I just want to know why people defend this?

When someone refutes complaints with a flippant statement like "if the product you purchased doesn't suit you, just break out your power tools and invest your time in re-engineering it", you are in the realm of argument for the sake of argument. TMIT is making a bunch of aggressive statements, and aggressive criticism rubs some people the wrong way.

 

[Ferocitus]

Why are you defending having less features in terms of ui?I don't understand this behavior?
Having less features and paying more money is insanity.
And having a simple thing like a queue is something basic 4x games had for years.

I just want to know why people defend this?

Maybe poor logic skills led you to intrepret my comments as not wanting more
features?
I didn't say that many changes wouldn't benefit many players who want features
to suit their particular play style, but IMO it's laughably ludicrous to believe
all players need (or want) the changes, and that the devs should make it a top
priority.

If I wanted more features, or improved ones,
then:
1. I could get them via existing mods, or
2. Write my own,
or
3. Wait until Firaxis have finished their expansion and attend to the very many
other aspects that require more immediate attention to see what would be the
best UI to support those changes.

Luckily, Firaxis have ignored those very weak, but persistent calls and
concentrated on important additions and enhancements at this stage of
development of what is, by far, the best version of a great game.

 

[Ferocitus]

That's a lot of straw.

• When I claim something is a strict improvement, I'd welcome demonstration as to why the notion is mistaken (note that such hasn't actually happened yet, or even been attempted).

All you have done is proposed and claimed. The onus is on you to demonstrate the
benefits, and you haven't done that. Hard code, a mod that can be assessed is
needed, not some airy-fairy ideas gleaned from a book, or comparisons with other
games that are not necessarily applicable to how Civ works for all players.

When I haven't, I don't see where the notion that I claim to "know what is best for all players" is originating.

Because you assert that your ideas should have been included in the
standard pack. You appear to have done so with very little research
into the very many different play styles and types of players. All you
have is your own, and a few comments from people who feel the
same way as you do.

Programming the game is the developer's job, not the users. We have poor UI elements and objectively broken UI elements (depending on the issue in question). The developers should fix them. Fixing unit cycling or avoiding the UI lying to players is not the realm of mods.

Sure programming is. Making the UI suit specific play styles (of which there are
an enormous variety) is not.

Motivations vary person to person. Much more important than the motivation, however, is the lack of coherent reasoning presented in the defense.

LOL. The offense has been ignored, repeatedly, and to the benefit of the game
and majority of players.

 

[hdbhdbvGFG541]

Maybe poor logic skills led you to intrepret my comments as not wanting more
features?
I didn't say that many changes wouldn't benefit many players who want features
to suit their particular play style, but IMO it's laughably ludicrous to believe
all players need (or want) the changes, and that the devs should make it a top
priority.

If I wanted more features, or improved ones,
then:
1. I could get them via existing mods, or
2. Write my own,
or
3. Wait until Firaxis have finished their expansion and attend to the very many
other aspects that require more immediate attention to see what would be the
best UI to support those changes.

Luckily, Firaxis have ignored those very weak, but persistent calls and
concentrated on important additions and enhancements at this stage of
development of what is, by far, the best version of a great game.

How much is firaxis paying you?
edit:Joking aside your argument are flawed:
1-Firaxis is listening to the majority of the players.
Wrong,and no company does this.The majority of the player base buy stuff on impulse and marketing and they don't care about playing the game whatsoever.They start a game,build a couple of cities and take canal photos for Reddit.After that they abandon the game until the next patch/dlc/expansion comes out.The thread title proves that.
If firaxis was listening to the 60 percent of the player base there would be no endgame,and most civ games would last for 50-100 turns with a share your city photo option for Facebook and other social media.
Also as a developer you never listen tot he majority,you always listen to the dedicated fans.
The reason for that is that the dedicated fan recommends changes that are based on his experience playing the game while the generic player recommends changes based on his fantasy.
Let me give a example:Generic fan wants features he has no idea how they will influence the game(health,corruption,more units,wonders,etc).
The dedicated fan wants changes to the core in terms of bug fixes and things that makes the game more playable,like the ui.
Another Example:There was a nice thread on civ Reddit complaining about how broken air combat is.
Broken in terms of bugs and wrong data being presented.Firaxis can look into that and change and fix bugs.
Now the average player doesn't care if the numbers are wrong but cares when bugs happen.
That is useless for a developer.

Also why doesn't Firaxis fix any of the major bugs introduced int the recent patches?
Most of the player base complains about this on steam.They seem to be very selectable when it comes to feedback..

2-Firaxis has concentrated on important additions and enhancements
bullfeathers.
Bugs in terms of ui and game play stuff not fixed for months.(air combat,settlers spawning close to each other,etc)
Ai bugs still present causing it to act like a sociopath because the numbers are being calculated wrong.
Ui features being removed from previous games and not a single enhancement being made to restore functionality to something like civ v vanilla.
Minus the religion overlay,which enactments did they make without causing more bugs?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

All you have done is proposed and claimed. The onus is on you to demonstrate the
benefits, and you haven't done that.

Fewer inputs to accomplish same task, same presentation + outcome. Demonstrated, done. Your turn to support your position as to why such is a negative for the game.

Because you assert that your ideas should have been included in the
standard pack.

Yes, UI equal or superior to standard practice (not even best practice!) over the last 20 years should make it into the base package of a AAA title. That shouldn't be a controversial statement.

You appear to have done so with very little research
into the very many different play styles and types of players.

When you have objectively bad UI (and I have demonstrated several facets of present UI that are objectively bad, not mentioned here in what I'm quoting), different play styles are irrelevant. More inputs than necessary to accomplish the same thing is bad. The UI lying to the player in a strategy game is bad. A strategy game not telling you its rules is bad. I don't care if your playstyle is like mine, like that of any former president (be that person from USA or France), or like that of wag naggle darg norf.

It doesn't matter. The UI sucks regardless. It sucks for reasons I've stated previously, reasons you're not addressing to this point. Your playstyle doesn't matter and does nothing in this argument because it's tangential.

LOL. The offense has been ignored, repeatedly, and to the benefit of the game
and majority of players.

Still lacking coherent reasoning.

The UI objectively lengthens games artificially. How much varies based on the player. It has a direct impact on game completion rate regardless, because there is no way around the conclusion that "more inputs = more time used on inputs".

That has nothing to do with play style, that red herring is not a refutation of reality. When a game asks the players to press buttons more often to accomplish the same thing that could be done in fewer presses, the game will take longer. Civ 6 provably does this, with an example from the same series serving as easy evidence.

 

[Ferocitus]

It doesn't matter. The UI sucks regardless. It sucks for reasons I've stated previously, reasons you're not addressing to this point. Your playstyle doesn't matter and does nothing in this argument because it's tangential.

It sucks for you and a miniscule number of others, not for me.

Fewer clicks on things that are not that important (or only matter to a small
fraction of players) hardly makes UI overhaul something that needs priority
over the many other aspects of the game that need attention.

But keep thumping that tub. After many months spruiking the same line, all you
have to show for the effort is complete rejection. Maybe it's just not as
important an issue as you want it to be.

 

[Ferocitus]

How much is firaxis paying you?

The complete rejection of the arguments for urgent UI overhaul doesn't need me shilling for Firaxis.
They have been ignored because they are not anywhere as important as you want them to be.

edit:Joking aside your argument are flawed:
1-Firaxis is listening to the majority of the players.
Wrong...

You must be replying to comments you wish someone had made, or just attributed it to me for
some weird reason. I never said they listen to a majority of players.

However, I am glad they don't listen to you, the MelnTeam and a few others who want their own
issues with the UI to get priority over many other ones needing attention, or to delay release of
DLCs or Rise and Fall.

Also why doesn't Firaxis fix any of the major bugs introduced int the recent patches?
Most of the player base complains about this on steam.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Complaints on Steam don't represent anything even remotely close
to a majority of the player base

 

[AmtrakQuebec]

Considering that I've played for thousands of hours in the last 15 years, I can still count all the games I've finished on my two hands. So, no, I think almost 40% is quite a lot actually.

Really? Wow, I've completed hundreds of games just in Civ6 alone.

 

[Lord_Azazel]

Really? Wow, I've completed hundreds of games just in Civ6 alone.

250 hours played on civ6 atm, 1 game completed.

 

[liv]

right now according to steam chats 76000 are playing civ 6. It has not been that high since right after the release

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It sucks for you and a miniscule number of others, not for me.

Fewer clicks on things that are not that important (or only matter to a small
fraction of players) hardly makes UI overhaul something that needs priority
over the many other aspects of the game that need attention.

But keep thumping that tub. After many months spruiking the same line, all you
have to show for the effort is complete rejection. Maybe it's just not as
important an issue as you want it to be.

It's not my choice if the developers make choices to leave the UI in a pathetic state.

I'm still going to talk about it though, and if seeking to refute my points in an actual discussion it would be useful to address them.

I have demonstrated that to at least some extent the UI is directly responsible for play length to complete games and contributes to the OP's stat. In the context of this thread, that is what's relevant...and is an uncontested argument for many pages now.

 

[Kurnn]

I suck, ok!

 

[SammyKhalifa]

The only base-game UIs I actively dislike are the trade route and spy UIs. They're just hideous.

But I want to know why on Earth I still can't sort the city list by column.

 

[bonafide11]

I still don't finish a lot of games, but I actually probably finish Civ VI more often than I finished Civ V or Civ IV (never played Civ III, played Civ II but never finished games for it). Civ IV was my favorite and I hardly ever finished games because it just became too tedious at the end. Civ VI does too, but for some reason I am more conscious of trying to finish the game as fast as possible so I have been playing to completion more.

 

[tedhebert]

When I start a game, it is usually to see it through to the end...

Having just a few hours available each day (if lucky) makes it so that my games take LOONNNNGGG to finish (on top of the fact that I usually play huge maps)

That probably explains why I have only finished about a dozen games in CIV6 so far, even playing many 100 hours...

 

[SammyKhalifa]

When I start a game, it is usually to see it through to the end...

Having just a few hours available each day (if lucky) makes it so that my games take LOONNNNGGG to finish (on top of the fact that I usually play huge maps)

That probably explains why I have only finished about a dozen games in CIV6 so far, even playing many 100 hours...

I think I've finished more game since the expansion came out than I have the whole rest of the time.