What's your opinion on civ switching?

[Siptah]

Far from this.

Firaxis developed Civ7 like this from the beginning - they created full age reset and then started to soften restrictions to get the game to a better shape. They just continue doing this. However, this can't evolve into any "classic" game mode:

1. All those changes still operate within the same ages framework. They don't change any fundamental things, which would require total game rebuild. For example, Firaxis made buildings retain their base yields, but the whole building/district system is still designed for overbuilding on the next age. Firaxis made independent powers reappear on the first turn, but the game is still designed for them to reset to initial state. And so on.

2. If you look at public reaction, the more continuity is added, the more voices there are that the old mode is better. People who play the game, accept ages as its core feature, so going to far from the original design would displease those who like the game approach as is.

I'd like to add to this that if there were plans to drop ages, they wouldn't waste dev time with smoothing out the age transition. They clearly intent to refine the age system, not drop it.

 

[GeneralZift]

I think it's quite impossible to have a classic mode. Like the others said, the game is just designed around the age system.
I'll be interested in seeing what the complete state of this age system looks like, and how it interacts with the complete version of the mechanics we'll see in the future.

 

[McSpank01]

Every patch i think people just need to accept the opposite. CLassic Mode is more and more inevitable

Firaxis keep trying to get away from Ages with every patch, its clear that they dont see the current design working. Eventually they will convince themselves Classic Mode is the only choice

No, what I think is happening is that Firaxis are panicking and doing whatever they can to put over the message to players that they are fixing things. I think there seems to be a train of thought that if they give players options to switch off core mechanics it will quieten people down. That has not happened, instead I think noises have gotten louder as we have now hit 6 months post release and the game is still not in a good place.

I don't think any of the changes they made so far point to them eventually moving to a classic mode, they are just signals of developers scrambling around trying to find the quickest fixes they can in the shortest time possible.

Essentially the game will always be built around ages and civ switching, too much of the entire game design and balance depends on it. The idea that it would just take a year to flip it into a classic version with no ages etc is utterly delusional. It basically means starting again and coming up with an entirely new game. Never going to happen.

 

[UWHabs]

I think it's quite impossible to have a classic mode. Like the others said, the game is just designed around the age system.
I'll be interested in seeing what the complete state of this age system looks like, and how it interacts with the complete version of the mechanics we'll see in the future.

The continuity mode is essentially shifting to be as close to a classic mode as they can, within the structure of the game. If they keep going down that direction, they're not too far from having a setup where even most "classic mode" fans would accept in an age transition. If the age transition turns into basically a soft reset, shifting of resource balance, change of some bonuses, that would get most of the way there I would guess for the vast majority of people. Sure, some people will still not be happy, but it's easing most people.

No, what I think is happening is that Firaxis are panicking and doing whatever they can to put over the message to players that they are fixing things. I think there seems to be a train of thought that if they give players options to switch off core mechanics it will quieten people down. That has not happened, instead I think noises have gotten louder as we have now hit 6 months post release and the game is still not in a good place.

I don't think any of the changes they made so far point to them eventually moving to a classic mode, they are just signals of developers scrambling around trying to find the quickest fixes they can in the shortest time possible.

Essentially the game will always be built around ages and civ switching, too much of the entire game design and balance depends on it. The idea that it would just take a year to flip it into a classic version with no ages etc is utterly delusional. It basically means starting again and coming up with an entirely new game. Never going to happen.

I mean, developers make the game for people to play and enjoy. They have certain constraints the game was designed around, so they're trying to find the balance between giving people what they want, without deviating too far from the original vision they had for the game.

 

[McSpank01]

I mean, developers make the game for people to play and enjoy. They have certain constraints the game was designed around, so they're trying to find the balance between giving people what they want, without deviating too far from the original vision they had for the game.

I think the majority of the changes made post launch have been designed with the idea of quietening down criticism rather than trying to make the best game they can.

For instance, I'm completely uninterested in updates that allow me to turn off major game design features, especially when the entire game concept is based on those features. Turning off Crises is just silly if you have built an entire game balance system on the idea of ages & crises, which is why when you turn them off it doesn't automatically make the game better, it just creates a set of other unforeseen issues.

This does not feel like a set of developers who are working towards a long term plan for what they want the game to be. I have very little confidence in the direction they are going, and that is the problem. That is also why I am against any move towards 'Classic Mode' because that is a major admission of failure, that they do not have confidence in the vision of their game. If they spent dev effort on classic mode they might as well stop supporting the game right now.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think the majority of the changes made post launch have been designed with the idea of quietening down criticism rather than trying to make the best game they can.

For instance, I'm completely uninterested in updates that allow me to turn off major game design features, especially when the entire game concept is based on those features. Turning off Crises is just silly if you have built an entire game balance system on the idea of ages & crises, which is why when you turn them off it doesn't automatically make the game better, it just creates a set of other unforeseen issues.

This does not feel like a set of developers who are working towards a long term plan for what they want the game to be. I have very little confidence in the direction they are going, and that is the problem. That is also why I am against any move towards 'Classic Mode' because that is a major admission of failure, that they do not have confidence in the vision of their game. If they spent dev effort on classic mode they might as well stop supporting the game right now.

Crises are not core feature. There's nothing connected to them - no civ or leader abilities interacting with them, no wonders, etc. Even policies which give, for example, bonus against independent powers, work equally well against normal independent powers as they work against barbarian crisis.

In contrast, overbuilding is part of the core feature. That's how districts work in Civ7 - instead of adding new buildings like in Civ6, you replace them. Overbuilding is specifically targeted by some of the policies and civ abilities, it's one of the sources for artifacts and so on. That's core and it's not something which will be lost or made optional.

One of the interesting things in that regard are natural disasters. For some reason (most likely Ed's preferences) natural disasters were made part of the core, so, for example, some civilization abilities interact with them. Because of this, there's no option to disable them completely.

Looking that way, I feel pretty confident at how developers stick to their vision of the game.

EDIT: In short I believe the controls to disable crises were planned as part of the original game vision, Firaxis just didn't have time to properly implement them before release.

 

[Siptah]

I don't think crises are a core feature, but they play an important role in the game's design. If you disable them, the end-game of each age becomes rather boring imho, and you lack the "narrative" for why there is a dark age in between the ages you play. The problem is that the crisis and crisis policies are incredibly unbalanced, and many crises are without any impact – especially with a little bit of planning. Yet, to my big surprise, we have seen zero changes to the crises content, apart from being able to select which one appears. That gives me the feeling that one of the bigger changes to age transitions still in the works is a rework of crises. Whether this is just rebalancing or a full redesign, I can't possibly know. But this would have been one of the first (and easy) targets for a rebalance, so I assume it is a redesign.

 

[Human Crouton]

No, what I think is happening is that Firaxis are panicking and doing whatever they can to put over the message to players that they are fixing things. I think there seems to be a train of thought that if they give players options to switch off core mechanics it will quieten people down. That has not happened, instead I think noises have gotten louder as we have now hit 6 months post release and the game is still not in a good place.

I don't think any of the changes they made so far point to them eventually moving to a classic mode, they are just signals of developers scrambling around trying to find the quickest fixes they can in the shortest time possible.

Essentially the game will always be built around ages and civ switching, too much of the entire game design and balance depends on it. The idea that it would just take a year to flip it into a classic version with no ages etc is utterly delusional. It basically means starting again and coming up with an entirely new game. Never going to happen.

That's what I think too. They are just frantically bailing water with no real obtainable goal other than not to sink.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't think crises are a core feature, but they play an important role in the game's design. If you disable them, the end-game of each age becomes rather boring imho, and you lack the "narrative" for why there is a dark age in between the ages you play. The problem is that the crisis and crisis policies are incredibly unbalanced, and many crises are without any impact – especially with a little bit of planning. Yet, to my big surprise, we have seen zero changes to the crises content, apart from being able to select which one appears. That gives me the feeling that one of the bigger changes to age transitions still in the works is a rework of crises. Whether this is just rebalancing or a full redesign, I can't possibly know. But this would have been one of the first (and easy) targets for a rebalance, so I assume it is a redesign.

They are more part of the immersion than gameplay. I don't find gameplay without crises being boring, I found crises to be annoying. But I understand how crises fit into narrative of dark ages causing the transformation of your civilization.

Regarding lack of updates, I think they'll come after the core gameplay will become more stable. For example, it doesn't make sense to make changes to religious crisis before religion will be revisited.

 

[McSpank01]

Crises are not core feature. There's nothing connected to them - no civ or leader abilities interacting with them, no wonders, etc

What I mean by this is that when Firaxis were designing Civ 7 at an early stage, I imagine that the cycle of crisis and ages was a core part of their thinking. Yes you can technically remove them, but the game is built with them in mind. The buildings you build, the way you are meant to be interacting and the gameplay loops seem to have been designed with the idea that you will also need to be dealing with a crisis at the same time. I think it becomes apparent when you turn them off and the end of the age becomes a slog with very little to do.

 

[UWHabs]

What I mean by this is that when Firaxis were designing Civ 7 at an early stage, I imagine that the cycle of crisis and ages was a core part of their thinking. Yes you can technically remove them, but the game is built with them in mind. The buildings you build, the way you are meant to be interacting and the gameplay loops seem to have been designed with the idea that you will also need to be dealing with a crisis at the same time. I think it becomes apparent when you turn them off and the end of the age becomes a slog with very little to do.

I am a little surprised in that, given how central they do seem logically to the whole age system and all, that there isn't as much interaction with them from civs. Although perhaps because they are varied, it's not like there's a specific civ that really meaningfully would be able to handle any of them - how a civ might curiously interact with the plague crisis vs the independent power are probably not close enough to give them bonus that works both ways. I do think with the game design, you could add a "Crisis Civics Tree" as an extension of the crisis policies system, but again, that would likely just be contained to crisis mechanics, so wouldn't necessarily need to interact outside of that system.

 

[stealth_nsk]

What I mean by this is that when Firaxis were designing Civ 7 at an early stage, I imagine that the cycle of crisis and ages was a core part of their thinking. Yes you can technically remove them, but the game is built with them in mind. The buildings you build, the way you are meant to be interacting and the gameplay loops seem to have been designed with the idea that you will also need to be dealing with a crisis at the same time. I think it becomes apparent when you turn them off and the end of the age becomes a slog with very little to do.

I think there are different definition of what "in mind" is. I think the idea was to have crises for immersion of age switch, but from gameplay perspective players should be able to disable them, because a lot of players don't like any crisis mechanics. And it surely looks like crises were designed in this paradigm. On one hand they added some historical things which are really ugly from gameplay perspective, like plague. On the other hand, they didn't tie any gameplay mechanics with crises and clearly seen them as disablable.

 

[McSpank01]

I think there are different definition of what "in mind" is. I think the idea was to have crises for immersion of age switch, but from gameplay perspective players should be able to disable them, because a lot of players don't like any crisis mechanics. And it surely looks like crises were designed in this paradigm. On one hand they added some historical things which are really ugly from gameplay perspective, like plague. On the other hand, they didn't tie any gameplay mechanics with crises and clearly seen them as disablable.

I don’t think they intended for players to turn them off, or if they did, they didn’t plan appropriately for it.

There are already issues with what happens towards the end of ages, extra busy work and just end turn simulating, which are only exasperated by turning crises off.

At the very least they never tested what would happen if you didn’t have crises on.

It seems that the speed at which they moved to allow players to turn crises off was because they were desperate to get rid of negative feedback, and crises were one of the major issues. The problem is that the gameplay cycle is designed with crises, it’s not as simple as turning them on and off.

 

[Siptah]

It seems that the speed at which they moved to allow players to turn crises off was because they were desperate to get rid of negative feedback, and crises were one of the major issues. The problem is that the gameplay cycle is designed with crises, it’s not as simple as turning them on and off.

I'm pretty sure crises could have been disabled from the start. I played one of my first games without them. So it was there at release (in early access) or came day 1. But i agree that it doesn't seem that they intended for no crises. Maybe with short ages?

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don’t think they intended for players to turn them off, or if they did, they didn’t plan appropriately for it.

There are already issues with what happens towards the end of ages, extra busy work and just end turn simulating, which are only exasperated by turning crises off.

Those are really fine-tuning related things. For example, the current changes in continuity option change a lot which things you do at the end of the age. So, when you plan conceptually, whether player should be able to turn crises off, those considerations are not on the plate at all.

At the very least they never tested what would happen if you didn’t have crises on.

I'm pretty sure they did some testing before presenting those options, but again, at this stage of the game it's not about making the game fun with all combinations of options available. It's about adding those options first (we still don't have a promised option to finish game in any age and victories connected to it) and fine-tune the game afterwards.

It seems that the speed at which they moved to allow players to turn crises off was because they were desperate to get rid of negative feedback, and crises were one of the major issues. The problem is that the gameplay cycle is designed with crises, it’s not as simple as turning them on and off.

Honestly, I don't see any rush to get rid of negative feedback in what Firaxis does. Surely, they reframed their marketing work to address it, but the features they add look like methodological continuation of that they started and not rush or panic at all.

 

[McSpank01]

Those are really fine-tuning related things. For example, the current changes in continuity option change a lot which things you do at the end of the age. So, when you plan conceptually, whether player should be able to turn crises off, those considerations are not on the plate at all.

I don’t agree. Fine tuning is playing with modifiers, updating the UI, minor tweaks to existing systems. Turning off major features or allowing users to ignore core mechanics is not fine tuning.

There is no chance Firaxis went into releasing the game, imaging that in 6 months they would be needed to do quick fixes to allow players to bypass core features, or spending a lot of dev effort in rolling back the mechanics of the game.

I'm pretty sure they did some testing before presenting those options, but again, at this stage of the game it's not about making the game fun with all combinations of options available. It's about adding those options first (we still don't have a promised option to finish game in any age and victories connected to it) and fine-tune the game afterwards.

There is obviously a difference between various levels of testing. I’m sure they tested as to whether removing crises technically broke the game, but seemed to have released it with no concept of what it means for how ages play out. That suggests it was never planned for, otherwise they would know ahead of time.

Honestly, I don't see any rush to get rid of negative feedback in what Firaxis does. Surely, they reframed their marketing work to address it, but the features they add look like methodological continuation of that they started and not rush or panic at all.

I think it’s ok to be supportive of Firaxis, but only up to a point, and this final paragraph just sounds like someone drinking the kool aid. I cannot see how someone can observe the actions that Firaxis have taken since release, the stuff they have focused on, and not come away with the conclusion that they are in panic mode to remove negative feedback.

6 months on, the game is really not substantially different, but what happened is that they have pulled in a lot of quick fixes that don’t seem very well thought out, which are rarely genuine improvements to the game, but allow them to say they have addressed an issue.

Most of the core issues the game have, really have not been addressed, but there are hacks which allow users to try and ignore them. That is clearly motivated by how they want to communicate to players, rather than making the best game they can.

 

[AD1730]

That's what I think too. They are just frantically bailing water with no real obtainable goal other than not to sink.

Right now, I believe Firaxis has taken the worst possible course of development. Rather than making civ switching and ages the best they can be or removing them altogether and changing course (which is my preference, and what I believe is needed), they've chosen to water them down. Unfortunately, that's a middle ground that is unlikely to please many or win back alienated fans.

 

[Crashdummy]

Far from this.

Firaxis developed Civ7 like this from the beginning - they created full age reset and then started to soften restrictions to get the game to a better shape. They just continue doing this. However, this can't evolve into any "classic" game mode:

1. All those changes still operate within the same ages framework. They don't change any fundamental things, which would require total game rebuild. For example, Firaxis made buildings retain their base yields, but the whole building/district system is still designed for overbuilding on the next age. Firaxis made independent powers reappear on the first turn, but the game is still designed for them to reset to initial state. And so on.

2. If you look at public reaction, the more continuity is added, the more voices there are that the old mode is better. People who play the game, accept ages as its core feature, so going to far from the original design would displease those who like the game approach as is.

I know they developed the game with Ages in mind, but the changes they are making show that they know it was a mistake to do so and the game is doing poorly because of it

Which public reaction? People are still asking for Classic Mode everywhere, and the changes have the problem that they try to work withing the framework, so these changes dont please those of us that want Classic Mode and dont please those that want Ages

Eventually, Firaxis will understand that they need to provide a full alternative to salvage the sinking ship (and again, Firaxis making changes to Ages in every single patch shows that the ship is sinking)

A Classic Mode would bring back players that dont like the Ages system without affecting those that do like it (since they would have tne non classic mode)

 

[aieeegrunt]

I think the majority of the changes made post launch have been designed with the idea of quietening down criticism rather than trying to make the best game they can.

For instance, I'm completely uninterested in updates that allow me to turn off major game design features, especially when the entire game concept is based on those features. Turning off Crises is just silly if you have built an entire game balance system on the idea of ages & crises, which is why when you turn them off it doesn't automatically make the game better, it just creates a set of other unforeseen issues.

This does not feel like a set of developers who are working towards a long term plan for what they want the game to be. I have very little confidence in the direction they are going, and that is the problem. That is also why I am against any move towards 'Classic Mode' because that is a major admission of failure, that they do not have confidence in the vision of their game. If they spent dev effort on classic mode they might as well stop supporting the game right now.

But the game is a failure, so all admission does is allow you to face the problem and try to solve it.

 

[Crashdummy]

Crises are not core feature. There's nothing connected to them - no civ or leader abilities interacting with them, no wonders, etc. Even policies which give, for example, bonus against independent powers, work equally well against normal independent powers as they work against barbarian crisis.

In contrast, overbuilding is part of the core feature. That's how districts work in Civ7 - instead of adding new buildings like in Civ6, you replace them. Overbuilding is specifically targeted by some of the policies and civ abilities, it's one of the sources for artifacts and so on. That's core and it's not something which will be lost or made optional.

One of the interesting things in that regard are natural disasters. For some reason (most likely Ed's preferences) natural disasters were made part of the core, so, for example, some civilization abilities interact with them. Because of this, there's no option to disable them completely.

Looking that way, I feel pretty confident at how developers stick to their vision of the game.

EDIT: In short I believe the controls to disable crises were planned as part of the original game vision, Firaxis just didn't have time to properly implement them before release.

You are replying to someone that thinks turning crisis off is something that was added after the launch....

The reality is we could always turn Crisis off, the only change was that beore it was all or none, and now we can do it individually