What's your opinion on civ switching?

[Lord Lakely]

Oh, if you're referring to me, don't worry about me thinking Civ7 is better than Civ6. It absolutely ISN'T. Civ6 base is way better, and it's not close.

Civ Switching isn't a big issue compared to the other problems. You adjust very quickly, and most leaders stay within their lane.

I feel like that sentiment is shared with most people that have actually played the game. The Age system and poor UI are way more problematic. The implementations are clumsy, specifically for the age transitions, presumably because it hadn't been done before, while the problems with Civ Switching that existed in Humankind (too many switches, too little impact, no sense of identity) are absent in Civ7.

If don't think it's worth the money, don't buy it. Just remain aware that you're commenting on mechanics that you haven't experienced in action yet, and there's only so much validity you can add to that when merely observing from the sidelines.

 

[ThunderLizard2]

Civ switching is not well implemented.

 

[Leucarum]

The Age system and poor UI are way more problematic. The implementations are clumsy, specifically for the age transitions,

So I feel like one of the few who didn't mind the sharp age transitions. I think I'll be playing with Continuous off... Exploration and Modern ages need work, but I think the era system is overall pretty solid.

presumably because it hadn't been done before, while the problems with Civ Switching that existed in Humankind (too many switches, too little impact, no sense of identity) are absent in Civ7.

On the other hand, I don't think they got rid of the identity issue. It's still somewhere between superficial and jarring for the AI especially. But they also made a bunch of new mistakes (too few civs, civ unlocks, not enough time to enjoy uniques). And I find that the more emotive side of it - does civ switching feel like a loss or a gain - comes down hard on the loss side for me. Starting to suspeft it's innate to the mechanic. Better than Humankind doesn't mean it's all good...

 

[socratic]

I wouldn't say it's quite that - more that it's fun to have a world where civs which didn't last in reality, are major players in the modern world. I really miss that 7 forces us to have the same old civs in each era... For me the alt. history fun was seeing if the Incas were independent into the modern era rather than trying to imagine what Macchu Picchu would look like with a skyscraper on top...

Civ 7 also has the unintended effect of making certain civs seem… “unimportant”, for lack of a better term. Greeks and Egyptians, both long-lasting groups that continue today, have dodgy or straight up no representation past Antiquity. The Greeks get straight up replaced by more “relevant” groups like Russians and Germans. I cant help but feel like that’s a little disrespectful, especially on a game thats premise is focused on the layers of history :/

Civ7's Civs are vibrant, flavourful and exciting to play. I enjoy playing them for an Era, and then moving on to the next, seeing how the Civ I played in Antiquity strongly impacts my game up to the very end.

I can say this is only true in Antiquity, with a few exceptions. The majority of civs in Exploration and Modern are fine. Im never excited to switch into Spain the same way I am to play Carthage. Everything feels samey. Maybe that’s more a symptom of the Legacy Paths, but I can’t help but feeling like i’d prefer playing one-city Carthage all game. Im not a fan of having your unique ability ripped away every transition.

 

[Brutus2]

I know it may not be perfect but Civ switching does fix a real problem from previous games. Civs previously were more or less designed for their one moment in the sun when their unique units or buildings were available but quickly became obsolete and were boring outside of that brief time. I do love that every Civ feels like it belongs in the era you are playing in and you're always playing a civ that interacts with the mechanics of that era.

 

[AD1730]

Civs previously were more or less designed for their one moment in the sun when their unique units or buildings were available but quickly became obsolete and were boring outside of that brief time.

Yeah, I don't see this as a problem.

 

[Leucarum]

I know it may not be perfect but Civ switching does fix a real problem from previous games. Civs previously were more or less designed for their one moment in the sun when their unique units or buildings were available but quickly became obsolete and were boring outside of that brief time. I do love that every Civ feels like it belongs in the era you are playing in and you're always playing a civ that interacts with the mechanics of that era.

It's pretty much the only advantage to civ switching, though I'd say you could accomplish this with any form of civ evolution, without the jarring consequences civ switching introduces.

It's also only an advantage if all the eras are equally good. And as much as I love Antiquity, and Exploration is getting its act in order, Modern is a hot mess still...

 

[Skojardu]

I'm honestly sad that there was no option on the poll that said "I hate it so much I haven't bought it." I'm wondering what % of us irredentists are just lurking on the forum complaining based on observations instead of experiences.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

I'm honestly sad that there was no option on the poll that said "I hate it so much I haven't bought it." I'm wondering what % of us irredentists are just lurking on the forum complaining based on observations instead of experiences.

I think you're supposed to just pick the last option as it would still apply to you.

 

[Crashdummy]

I'll repeat it a hundred times if I must. Civ7 has problems. Civ Switching is NOT one of them. That part is actually done well (or acceptably well, if you'll have it.)

I heavily disagree

I myself have played every single Civ since Civ 1, i never installed a mod, because i liked the games how the Developers presented them to me.I bought Civ 7 Founder Edition without any doubt, Firaxis never dissapointed me. And yet here i am, played several games and had to uninstall, entirely because of Civ switching and Age transitions

Yes, there are bugs and the UI is terrible, but those are minor issues for me, because i know Firaxis can fix that without any doubt, but the core design going against what i consider the very soul of the Civilization franchise, that is something i cant ignore

When i talk about the soul of the franchise, i mean a smooth sandbox game, without interruptions, where you can build your empire to stand the Test of Time. They even had to change their slogan because they knew it was something you couldnt do anymore

And the amount of immersion breaking that the 2 gameplay interruptions the Age transitions cause to me is also a deal break for me. Only a Classic Mode would make me install the game again, because that is what Civilization is about, IMHO

 

[Bug Repellent]

I know it may not be perfect but Civ switching does fix a real problem from previous games. Civs previously were more or less designed for their one moment in the sun when their unique units or buildings were available but quickly became obsolete and were boring outside of that brief time. I do love that every Civ feels like it belongs in the era you are playing in and you're always playing a civ that interacts with the mechanics of that era.

Respectfully, this is false. Blatantly so. Take Greece. Does their "Gain an additional Wildcard policy slot in any government" go away as the game progresses? No, it doesn't. Take Korea. Does their "Farms receive +1 Food and Mines receive +1 Science for each adjacent Seowon" become obsolete in later eras? No. You can go on and on for MOST major Civ6 civs: Russia, Germany, China, India, Inca, Spain, Rome, Portugal, Zulu, Egypt, and so on.

There are so many people that try to defend Civ7 by saying demonstrably false things about previous installments. Like the quoted "real problem" that is just not true. Or the fact that Civ5 and Civ6 also had the same growing pains like Civ7 has. No they didn't!!! The data for user reviews and player retention is available for all to see on SteamDB. I hate to break this to you, but repeating the same untruths about Civ5 or Civ6 initial reception will not fix any of Civ7's issues or its abysmal sales numbers, if Gamalytic's estimate of just 2.6k copies of Civ7 sold on Steam during the last 7 days is to be believed.

 

[Bug Repellent]

The results of the poll, if applicable to the entire player base, are fascinating, particularly for multiplayer games. If only 70% of players are willing to touch Civ7 due to civ swapping, 4 buddies playing multiplayer Civ6 thinking about migrating to Civ7 have a 75% chance that at least one of them hates civ swapping so much as to not touch the game. The chance of at least two of them hating civ swapping is 35%. These are the terrible odds of unpopular game design choices. I'm amazed how Firaxis couldn't figure out that nearly half of its player base would come to dislike civ swapping. Especially since this feature was poorly received in Humankind.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The results of the poll, if applicable to the entire player base, are fascinating, particularly for multiplayer games. If only 70% of players are willing to touch Civ7 due to civ swapping, 4 buddies playing multiplayer Civ6 thinking about migrating to Civ7 have a 75% chance that at least one of them hates civ swapping so much as to not touch the game. The chance of at least two of them hating civ swapping is 35%. These are the terrible odds of unpopular game design choices. I'm amazed how Firaxis couldn't figure out that nearly half of its player base would come to dislike civ swapping. Especially since this feature was poorly received in Humankind.

Well, the question of representation is big if we try to apply it to wide user base. On one hand, that's civ fanatics forum, most of us played multiple iterations on civ games and we're more resistance to changes than people who could see the game with fresh eyes. On the other hand, we could speculate that some people who dislike the game too much, deserted it completely and don't participate in poll (although it feels like they all are very active on this forum). For simplicity, I wouldn't clutch to numbers, but assume general info from the poll is right.

So, with this I'd say implementing civ switching looks like a mistake by Firaxis, due to amount of negativity it produced. On the other hand, expecting Firaxis to implement any drastic measures and removing civ switching now is delusional - the feature has enough positivity to keep it and removing would cause negativity wave from the other side, not to mention the huge amount of work required to rebuild all the civs.

Regarding multiplayer - it's an interesting question. I strongly doubt many people who don't want to touch the game play multiplayer, because Civ7 does so much for multiplayer games. Including the promised (but, unfortunately not yet delivered) ability to finish the game in any age, negating negativity from civ switching.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Well, the question of representation is big if we try to apply it to wide user base. On one hand, that's civ fanatics forum, most of us played multiple iterations on civ games and we're more resistance to changes than people who could see the game with fresh eyes. On the other hand, we could speculate that some people who dislike the game too much, deserted it completely and don't participate in poll (although it feels like they all are very active on this forum). For simplicity, I wouldn't clutch to numbers, but assume general info from the poll is right.

So, with this I'd say implementing civ switching looks like a mistake by Firaxis, due to amount of negativity it produced. On the other hand, expecting Firaxis to implement any drastic measures and removing civ switching now is delusional - the feature has enough positivity to keep it and removing would cause negativity wave from the other side, not to mention the huge amount of work required to rebuild all the civs.

Regarding multiplayer - it's an interesting question. I strongly doubt many people who don't want to touch the game play multiplayer, because Civ7 does so much for multiplayer games. Including the promised (but, unfortunately not yet delivered) ability to finish the game in any age, negating negativity from civ switching.

I'm a primarily multiplayer person and I don't know what mythical persona they are appealing to with the changes they made, and I won't be playing because of Civ switching.

It's not a problem for my group though, because every one of us has independently completely switched off from even thinking about buying Civ VII as soon as we found out about Civ switching.

Civ isn't just a set of mechanics, it's a very specific concept to the wider masses it has appealed to, and it's represented quite aptly by the idea of Gandhi causing a nuclear apocalypse. Most casuals play Civ because of alt history, not because of reality, and that's been ripped away.

 

[McSpank01]

So, with this I'd say implementing civ switching looks like a mistake by Firaxis, due to amount of negativity it produced. On the other hand, expecting Firaxis to implement any drastic measures and removing civ switching now is delusional - the feature has enough positivity to keep it and removing would cause negativity wave from the other side, not to mention the huge amount of work required to rebuild all the civs.

I'd also say making attempts to appease the unhappy players by giving them options to play without civ switching defeats the point. Civ Switching is a core mechanic of the game. The answer here is to make Civ Switching as fun and immersive as they can, so that even the doubters can be won round. The basic idea is there, I feel like most people are on board with it, they just want it to be organic and more fun. It's definitely possible to get there.

 

[GeneralZift]

There is no problem with Civ switching, but there is an issue with forcing a Civ switch at a particular interval. It doesn't carry through to what's happening in-game.

The other thing is that when you design it side by side with the Age system it becomes very linear and sort of 'organised' as opposed to fluid.

Now essentially, what I'd like is no set Age system, and instead your Civ switch becomes possible under specific circumstances and is no longer mandatory for all players.
You'd still be able to play Rome until the end, but if you reach 'fall of Rome' circumstances you can Civ switch into the Byzantines.

WIthout the Age system design, you no longer need to design special bonuses for each age. We'd go back to how it was previously, with soft bonuses for the entire game.

Of course the switched Civs would have some bonuses that are more relevant to the more modern eras. But they're not necessary to win, and instead act like alternate routes.

I'd actually really enjoy that and perhaps we'll see it for Civ8.

 

[Kev1916]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding that keeps persisting. I have never once started up a game of Civ hoping for realism. I play Civ precisely for a less realistic experience. I don't care that one Civ lasting millennia isnt realistic, I just want to build an Egyptian flavoured empire with nuclear weapons and frigates and pyramid skyscrapers.

That was the selling point of Civ for me, and it's completely absent from this game.

Totally , along with people who believe that some don’t like Civ switching because there too emotional!

Previous Civ games did not cater nor were primary designed for the “Switch “ console

 

[aieeegrunt]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding that keeps persisting. I have never once started up a game of Civ hoping for realism. I play Civ precisely for a less realistic experience. I don't care that one Civ lasting millennia isnt realistic, I just want to build an Egyptian flavoured empire with nuclear weapons and frigates and pyramid skyscrapers.

That was the selling point of Civ for me, and it's completely absent from this game.

It was the core identity of the game for the majority of the playerbase. You’d think the sad fates of Fallout and Halo would have clued the dev team in that this was an awful idea.

Yeah I really don't know what to say when people are telling me my reasons for not wanting to buy the game aren't issues with the game and that Civ 7 is actually better at what I want than previous games somehow. Guess I have to buy it then, I've been facts and logic'd by Civ Shapiro

It’s something alright.

The results of the poll, if applicable to the entire player base, are fascinating, particularly for multiplayer games. If only 70% of players are willing to touch Civ7 due to civ swapping, 4 buddies playing multiplayer Civ6 thinking about migrating to Civ7 have a 75% chance that at least one of them hates civ swapping so much as to not touch the game. The chance of at least two of them hating civ swapping is 35%. These are the terrible odds of unpopular game design choices. I'm amazed how Firaxis couldn't figure out that nearly half of its player base would come to dislike civ swapping. Especially since this feature was poorly received in Humankind.

I would say it’s far worse than that. The vast majority of people turned off by these changes won’t bother coming to the forum, because they moved on to other things.

I'd also say making attempts to appease the unhappy players by giving them options to play without civ switching defeats the point. Civ Switching is a core mechanic of the game. The answer here is to make Civ Switching as fun and immersive as they can, so that even the doubters can be won round. The basic idea is there, I feel like most people are on board with it, they just want it to be organic and more fun. It's definitely possible to get there.

No amount of lipstick can make this pig appealing. No amount of polish can make this turd shine.

If the very concept itself is alienating, that doesn’t change a thing.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It was the core identity of the game for the majority of the playerbase.

That's exactly why we have this poll. No, it's not the majority.

 

[aieeegrunt]

That's exactly why we have this poll. No, it's not the majority.

Going by the sales and playercount, yes it is