What's your opinion on civ switching?

[Porry]

The last few posts didn't seem to contain constructive criticism. Anyway, please continue.

 

[Civinator]

And that makes you happy, right? Enjoy it, because those who are having fun with Civ 7 might lose the game they're enjoying.
Nice!

This is one of the biggest nonsenses I have read in all these discussions. You as one of the civers, who are having fun with Civ 7, can not lose the game you are enjoying, because you have that game you are enjoying. Do you really think Firaxis will take the licence away from you to play the Civ 7 you have paid for?

A different topic is, if there will be a lot of new additional stuff for Civ 7, if there shouldn´t be enough players to buy that stuff. Here your post is not helpful too, because you are one of the potential customers who have bought Civ 7 yet - and not one of the additional customers who are needed, if your fear should be somewhat valid. In such a case the "wagenburg mentality" is not helpful to gain the additional players who are needed in such a case.

 

[Gorbles]

Do you really think Firaxis will take the licence away from you to play the Civ 7 you have paid for?

If the game is changed beyond all recognition to suit players who don't want to play any version of the current game?

Yes. By definition, yes.

More than a few critics say that the game is a colossal failure. Some even say devs should lose their jobs. That this game should be shelved and a new one put out ASAP. Or that this game should be radically changed to attract back the players that it has lost.

All of these are real opinions. None of them are misrepresented. No one person says all of the things listed. But they are all real opinions that have been said that would lead to the outcome you're scoffing at.

 

[Maiq]

If the game is changed beyond all recognition to suit players who don't want to play any version of the current game?

Yes. By definition, yes.

More than a few critics say that the game is a colossal failure. Some even say devs should lose their jobs. That this game should be shelved and a new one put out ASAP. Or that this game should be radically changed to attract back the players that it has lost.

All of these are real opinions. None of them are misrepresented. No one person says all of the things listed. But they are all real opinions that have been said that would lead to the outcome you're scoffing at.

Just think of it as Civ 7 changing its culture. Gotta adapt when a crisis hits.

 

[Gorbles]

Just think of it as Civ 7 changing its culture. Gotta adapt when a crisis hits.

Should the critics adapt?

Should anyone?

Is there anything wrong with liking something? Or not liking it?

 

[Crashdummy]

I assume that when the game receives more polish and content, civ switching won't stop as many as 35% of people from playing or enjoying the game. Which means, civ switching wasn't an issue in the first place. Which brings us to the list of issues I provided in my comment.

It also depends on what we refer to in the context of civ switching. If we're talking strictly about the concept of changing civs between eras, that's one thing. If we're talking about everything related to its implementation in Civ 7 (the UI during the switching, the pool of civs to choose from), it's a different thing. I thought the survey posted in this thread referred to the concept, not implementation nuances, and comment accordingly.

The game already received a lot of polish and some content, and numbers dont grow

Civ switchign is a major reason why people dont play, along with age transitions and UI problems, etc

Its funny how the ones that are playing Civ 7 are the ones saying that the people that dont play its not because Civ switching, when the ones that have the game and dont play it or didnt even buy it in the first place are the ones telling them that the reason we dont play it is agre transitions and civ switching

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Exactly, you have no right because you haven't played the game and don't have the knowledge to constructively criticize it. You're so full of yourself that you took these words as a personal attack. However, I've read your posts on this forum, and all you do is throw mud at the game. I repeat: there are people who are enjoying it and don't want to see people like you trashing it for no reason.

OH no I do have a right because I don't need to waste my money on a game that has nearly overwhemingly negative user reviews across almost every medium that allows user feeback that I know is full of crappy and unpopular design choices I don't want this version of Civilization.. I don't need to play the game to know that crisises, detached leaders, civ swapping, and abrupt change between ages feels like crap, I can just watch someone else play and read reviews to come to that conclusion on my own.

I'm not full of my self because you're a fanboy telling people they don't have a right to criticize a video game which by all accounts was a complete flop on a public forum. You think the game is being trashed for no reason but that conclusion just seems radically divorced from reality.... Just like your constant need to bring up the people who enjoy the game while ignoring that the game sold less than VI, has less players than V, and is sitting on mixed/negative review . Why?
Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. The_J

 

[Wrenched]

And that makes you happy, right? Enjoy it, because those who are having fun with Civ 7 might lose the game they're enjoying.
Nice!

Paradox are great about offering players the option (via Steam) to roll back to earlier versions. Right now in Europa Universalis IV I can pick between 25-30 previous versions to roll my installed game back to via Steam betas.

I wonder if Firaxis could offer something similar or how difficult that is to support. If Firaxis does go on to radically alter Civ VII that might be a decent way forward that maintains options for fans of each version.

 

[Kev1916]

Exactly, you have no right because you haven't played the game and don't have the knowledge to constructively criticize it. You're so full of yourself that you took these words as a personal attack. However, I've read your posts on this forum, and all you do is throw mud at the game. I repeat: there are people who are enjoying it and don't want to see people like you trashing it for no reason.

The thread is titled “

What's your opinion on civ switching?​

Did we missed the disclaimer that stated don’t reply if you don’t play the game ,

Btw poll results do sort of put shame to your rant

 

[Pfeffersack]

Btw poll results do sort of put shame to your rant

The poll figures show a split. Yes, those absolutely loathing switching have the relative majority, but the picture shifts, if you group the two top and the two bottom options (ATM, 80:79). Of course, still a split and it is its own sign that even on a place like Civfanatics a considerable amount of people don't appreciate civ switching to put it mildly. However, a split means that there are still both sides. Lovers and Haters...and even some people in between (where I group in myself, with a negative leaning - in short: didn't need it, didn't like in in its current form while not stopping me from playing, but could in theory be a benefit, if changed and corrected to something new/better with a huge effort...which very likely won't happen). I don't agree with Porry that only owners are allowed to critizise, but in my perception there is also the tendency for some people disliking civ switching having troubles accepting the other position (not personally accusing you of that, to make that clear ). Ideally all the discussion wouldn't got that heated again and again, but that's probably a lot to ask for being in the internet in a fan community and in regard to such a divisive topic

 

[Kev1916]

The poll figures show a split. Yes, those absolutely loathing switching have the relative majority, but the picture shifts, if you group the two top and the two bottom options (ATM, 80:79). Of course, still a split and it is its own sign that even on a place like Civfanatics a considerable amount of people don't appreciate civ switching to put it mildly. However, a split means that there are still both sides. Lovers and Haters...and even some people in between (where I group in myself, with a negative leaning - in short: didn't need it, didn't like in in its current form while not stopping me from playing, but could in theory be a benefit, if changed and corrected to something new/better with a huge effort...which very likely won't happen). I don't agree with Porry that only owners are allowed to critizise, but in my perception there is also the tendency for some people disliking civ switching having troubles accepting the other position (not personally accusing you of that, to make that clear ). Ideally all the discussion wouldn't got that heated again and again, but that's probably a lot to ask for being in the internet in a fan community and in regard to such a divisive topic

Well said , it was aimed at Potty , another example would be say pineapple on pizza .

Many loathe the idea and it's a divisive topic and yea many "strange" people seem to like it

 

[Civinator]

Paradox are great about offering players the option (via Steam) to roll back to earlier versions. Right now in Europa Universalis IV I can pick between 25-30 previous versions to roll my installed game back to via Steam betas.

I wonder if Firaxis could offer something similar or how difficult that is to support. If Firaxis does go on to radically alter Civ VII that might be a decent way forward that maintains options for fans of each version.

At least those extreme "switches" could survive in a "bizarre-option" to play Civ 7.

 

[GeneralZift]

Just think of it as Civ 7 changing its culture. Gotta adapt when a crisis hits.

Comment of the century this needs to enter CivFanatics Hall of Fame

 

[Mesix]

I would rather be offered a new leader at each age transition. This would make more sense than the civ switching and keeping the same leader throughout time as it is implemented now. It is emersion breaking to have an age end, and to transition from Egyptian to German civs while keeping Ben Franklin as the leader. Perhaps if there were appropriate options (i.e. antiquity Gaul has options to transition to France or Ireland in the Exploration era) along with an appropriate leader selection, the player could still have the feel of options while maintaining some sense of continuity to rule a civilization to stand the test of time.

 

[reddishrecue]

Civ switching is awesome because it provides more competition and changes the game play from the way the game play that it used to have before. This allows players to have more competition per game with the AI. Since there are 3 major eras, there are 3 opportunities to compete. Another good part I see in this is that there are different aspects per era that one can compete, it's not always a wonder game like it is in the beginning ancient era. The goals change as eras pass, and AIs are up for the competition. Since its a world where we're being dominated by the AI, the AI is the key competitor since it stays on the game depending on the difficulty level.

 

[Sagax]

Civ switching is awesome because it provides more competition and changes the game play from the way the game play that it used to have before. This allows players to have more competition per game with the AI. Since there are 3 major eras, there are 3 opportunities to compete. Another good part I see in this is that there are different aspects per era that one can compete, it's not always a wonder game like it is in the beginning ancient era. The goals change as eras pass, and AIs are up for the competition. Since its a world where we're being dominated by the AI, the AI is the key competitor since it stays on the game depending on the difficulty level.

This sounds more like an argument for age transitions rather than civ-switching per se, something that this thread specifically asked to keep separate. Although I must say, there are some aspects where the two are tightly intertwined and it's hard to discuss one without the other.

 

[Haig]

I don't play the game anymore and have went back to Civ 6, mainly because of civ switching.

One of the problems is that I never found that civs not having uniques every era was some kind of problem. I felt it was interesting that for example as France you knew that most of your kit came on midgame, but it was a reward ahead. Some civs had power spikes and some were more evenly spread.
Gone is also situations where you defend your backwards medieval realm against an empire already in industrial era. I think having too much balance was a mistake.

Redcoats do not feel special if each civ has their own redcoats facing them.

The change itself feels for me too heavy handed or clumsy, like you are put to this loading screen like you were loading a save or mod, not very smooth.

It doesnt also feel organic and has the same problem Humankind had, like how your neighbour turns from Japan to India. Unless actual India conquers your neighbor, like it could happen in previous versions.
I think design failed in the part how it doesnt keep enough remains of a previous civ but is an abrupt total makeover.

Another big problem in Civ 7 has been the bloated bonus system, where you get bonus abilities from many many sources, from abilities and mementos to unique civics and unique bonus luxury resources. With civ switch you need to memorize another batch of bonuses witch is not easy for me.

Added to this is how you might now have Napoleon leading Japanese, which makes it more confusing.

Another thing civ switching takes away imho is the strategy discussion and people having their "main" civs. People can discuss Civ 6 and how they love to play a Poland run or how they like Maori playstyle but now that is gone.
Egypt-Norman-Singapore with Mike Tyson leading and having some mementos too is not the same.

I fewl bummed because I waited years for a new Civilization game and I actually like many of new features.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I don't play the game anymore and have went back to Civ 6, mainly because of civ switching.

One of the problems is that I never found that civs not having uniques every era was some kind of problem. I felt it was interesting that for example as France you knew that most of your kit came on midgame, but it was a reward ahead. Some civs had power spikes and some were more evenly spread.
Gone is also situations where you defend your backwards medieval realm against an empire already in industrial era. I think having too much balance was a mistake.

Redcoats do not feel special if each civ has their own redcoats facing them.

The change itself feels for me too heavy handed or clumsy, like you are put to this loading screen like you were loading a save or mod, not very smooth.

It doesnt also feel organic and has the same problem Humankind had, like how your neighbour turns from Japan to India. Unless actual India conquers your neighbor, like it could happen in previous versions.
I think design failed in the part how it doesnt keep enough remains of a previous civ but is an abrupt total makeover.

Another big problem in Civ 7 has been the bloated bonus system, where you get bonus abilities from many many sources, from abilities and mementos to unique civics and unique bonus luxury resources. With civ switch you need to memorize another batch of bonuses witch is not easy for me.

Added to this is how you might now have Napoleon leading Japanese, which makes it more confusing.

Another thing civ switching takes away imho is the strategy discussion and people having their "main" civs. People can discuss Civ 6 and how they love to play a Poland run or how they like Maori playstyle but now that is gone.
Egypt-Norman-Singapore with Mike Tyson leading and having some mementos too is not the same.

I fewl bummed because I waited years for a new Civilization game and I actually like many of new features.

Ya I feel that. Civ 7 has quite a few features I’ve either wanted for a while or want to try out, but civ switching and the era resets make that moot. You might be able to make an interesting game out of that concept, History Of The World did, but it’s not Civ

 

[Bug Repellent]

Civ switching is awesome because it provides more competition and changes the game play from the way the game play that it used to have before. This allows players to have more competition per game with the AI. Since there are 3 major eras, there are 3 opportunities to compete. Another good part I see in this is that there are different aspects per era that one can compete, it's not always a wonder game like it is in the beginning ancient era. The goals change as eras pass, and AIs are up for the competition. Since its a world where we're being dominated by the AI, the AI is the key competitor since it stays on the game depending on the difficulty level.

Just about everything you wrote here is unappealing to me. This probably means Civ's sandbox qualities are high up on my list, but not yours. Now that I think of it, this must be it. In Civ6, I don't think I've played more than one game with dramatic ages. Since it forces me to focus so much on era score, it ruins the game for me (on deity I'd lose a ton of cities if I enter a dark age). Abrupt age transitions and forced civ switching in Civ7 are similar to Civ6's dramatic ages. This is why I think it was a mistake to have them baked into the core of the game and not offered like an optional game mode. I get that many like Civ7's core mechanics and I'm happy for every single one of you. But they're not for me though. Last weekend I went back to a Pharaoh + Cleopatra campaign. Yep, that's how much I love sandbox games.

 

[Crashdummy]

Civ switching is awesome because it provides more competition and changes the game play from the way the game play that it used to have before. This allows players to have more competition per game with the AI. Since there are 3 major eras, there are 3 opportunities to compete. Another good part I see in this is that there are different aspects per era that one can compete, it's not always a wonder game like it is in the beginning ancient era. The goals change as eras pass, and AIs are up for the competition. Since its a world where we're being dominated by the AI, the AI is the key competitor since it stays on the game depending on the difficulty level.

So Age transitions are great because they cut your game in three and forces you to always play short games (since Ages will always be shorter than a full game in previous Civs). We were talking about Civ switching but well....

The problem is, many of us liked to play long games, and we never had a probelm with snowballing

I think punishing people from playing well in the early game by giving handouts to your enemies goes against what a game should do, but well, to each their own

The game is not doing well, that is quite clear