What's your opinion on civ switching?

[AD1730]

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)

Yes, but the Classic Mode will need to be fully functional and supported to win people back. I think that's unlikely, which is why I believe Firaxis needs to take one of the forks in the road and implement it to the fullest extent. Milquetoast (which is what they're doing now) will not sell.

 

[stealth_nsk]

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.

I'm talking about gameplay finetuning.

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 don't see any bypassing of core features or rolling back important mechanics. Tuning which things are kept between ages and in which form is a normal part of software development.

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.

I don't understand it. What do you mean "with no concept of what it means for how ages play out"? There shouldn't be any concept.

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.

It's not about supporting Firaxis, it's about understanding what they are doing. I totally understand that the game lacked some "must have" features on release and still lacking some (age-specific victory conditions are part of the core game concept) and I'm not happy about it. But it doesn't mean Firaxis is running like a chicken without a head, throwing random updates. They just were forced to release the game several months earlier than it would be good to and have to adapt to it.

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.

I disagree on multiple levels.

1. Most of the things Firaxis does, really improve the game.
2. Most of the things they do, look planned.
3. In the current state of the game (which is technically more like "early access") it's normal for features to have limited testing behind. There are too many areas of the game to improve at the same time

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.

Which core issues you're talking about here?

 

[Crashdummy]

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.

This is the issue. The changes they are making are not going to please anyone. Those of us that dont like the current system and want Classic Mode will not come back because we can keep more gold between Ages...

They need to make a decision, soon

 

[Siptah]

Yes, but the Classic Mode will need to be fully functional and supported to win people back. I think that's unlikely, which is why I believe Firaxis needs to take one of the forks in the road and implement it to the fullest extent.

Exactly, playing without ages and switching doesn't work as a side mode (or even main mode). It requires a redesign of the game and than this would be the only option to play it. Which I think is unlikely. Having ages and classic mode simultaneously in the game doubles the workload: half of the leaders would have different abilities, in one mode buildings and great works go obsolete but are permanent in the other, in one mode yields on tiles are revamped but not in the other, in one mode legacy points can be used to grant additional bonuses but no in the other, etc. It's impossible to keep both up and 'balanced'.

They need to make a decision, soon

They already made it years ago, and I don't see any indication that they've changed that. Ages are in, and stay in. All that's happening is smoothing out the roughest edges so that players that were put off by resets, crises, etc aren't as appalled.

 

[Crashdummy]

Exactly, playing without ages and switching doesn't work as a side mode (or even main mode). It requires a redesign of the game and than this would be the only option to play it. Which I think is unlikely. Having ages and classic mode simultaneously in the game doubles the workload: half of the leaders would have different abilities, in one mode buildings and great works go obsolete but are permanent in the other, in one mode yields on tiles are revamped but not in the other, in one mode legacy points can be used to grant additional bonuses but no in the other, etc. It's impossible to keep both up and 'balanced'.


They already made it years ago, and I don't see any indication that they've changed that. Ages are in, and stay in. All that's happening is smoothing out the roughest edges so that players that were put off by resets, crises, etc aren't as appalled.

When i said make a decision i meant going full Ages, without watering down, or make Classic Mode

As i said in that same post you quoted, this middle grounsd wont please almost anyone

The decision made before knowing that it was going to be a failure is irrelevant, they know have information they didnt have them, their vision failed. Now they have a new decision

 

[stealth_nsk]

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

I don't see it like this, they are tuning ages the way they did it for the last 5 years before the game release, just continue doing this. Whether they think this was a mistake or not, the game is built with ages and they continue improving it with ages.

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

I see a lot of people commenting on how they prefer "regroup" options and worry that it's not default, both here and on Reddit. I believe people asking classic mode are mostly those who don't actively play the game, and those discussing regroup/continuity are those who actively play it.

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)

Again, I see no signs of it. No core gameplay changes so far.

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)

Trying to create classic mode would ruin the game now. Too many efforts, some half-baked result in either way. And based on what I see, Firaxis totally understand that and stick to their original approach.

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

Yes, you're right! I forgot about it. This makes all the points I was replying to incorrect already.

 

[Leucarum]

Maybe Firaxis have something different planned for their major patch or first big expansion, but it seems as though the changes we've seeen them aiming for reduce how much is lost on age transitions. We've got continuity mode, we've got more gold/influence carrying over, alliances persisting, base yields sticking around, a more gradual shift in relationships...

Given this direction of travel, my question is what Firaxis can do to make Modern in particular an interesting age, given that they are strengthening the snowball. Ultimately the age system is as strong as its weakest age, while Civ Switching falls apart when a large portion of civs are locked to an uninteresting age.

I don't think Firaxis want to release a classic mode, and I don't think what we'd end up with would ever be called that. But the changes they are making look set to exacerbate the sidelining of modern. If you don't deal with snowballing, that badly undermines civ switching as modern civs won't be worth playing or buying.

All that's happening is smoothing out the roughest edges so that players that were put off by resets, crises, etc aren't as appalled.

That's a good way of phrasing it.. It's the consequences of that choice which I think are bad for the original design. I've suspect they've learned that taking stuff away from the player is going to be too unpopular for them to stomach, but Civ7's design depended on making late game interesting, and that's tough to do if you are already smoothing out the anti-snowball elements.

 

[Leucarum]

I think I'm in the weird position of liking the age system and anti-snowball mechanics but disliking civ switching so I am simultaneously frustrated and happy with the slippery slope Firaxis seem to be headed towards.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This is the issue. The changes they are making are not going to please anyone. Those of us that dont like the current system and want Classic Mode will not come back because we can keep more gold between Ages...

They need to make a decision, soon

That decision will probably be for Civilization 8.
I don't see how they can implement a classic mode in this game.

 

[AD1730]

I'll be very curious to see if we see significant leadership changes at Firaxis and they bring someone in to make the difficult decisions that need to be made. Someone who is detached from the decisions made during development would probably be good for steering future development.

 

[WillK96]

That decision will probably be for Civilization 8.
I don't see how they can implement a classic mode in this game.

Agreed. With how the game is trending, Civ 8 may be closer than we think.

 

[Crashdummy]

That decision will probably be for Civilization 8.
I don't see how they can implement a classic mode in this game.

Moders have done basic steps towards it, being alone, in less than 5 months. Of course those mods arent really a Classic Mode, being made by a single developer in very little time. Friaxis can make a fully fleshed Classic Mode in a year or two

This isnt about being possible or not, the quesrtion is which decision they will make

 

[Siptah]

Agreed. With how the game is trending, Civ 8 may be closer than we think.

The development time for civ 7 until release was 6 years iirc (or at least more than 5). If they start on civ 8 right now and use civ 7 as a base for graphics and the turn-to-turn base game loop, they'd probably still needed until 2028.

 

[WillK96]

The development time for civ 7 until release was 6 years iirc (or at least more than 5). If they start on civ 8 right now and use civ 7 as a base for graphics and the turn-to-turn base game loop, they'd probably still needed until 2028.

Let's say they start Civ 8 next March, after a January/Feb expansion is flop. They could get that game out, using the rule of 1/3rds rather than the destroy the 35 year old core mechanics and create a Civilization flavored Humankind clone model of game design, by 2030. That's 5 years. A lot closer than I would've thought Civ 8 was in January.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think interpretation of Firaxis actions totally depends on personal optics. If you're someone who hates age switching, you interpret any data as sign of Civ7 fail and see continuity mode as steps toward "classic mode". If you accept that the game is fun, you see continuity mode as a reaction to particular issues within the core game framework (both issues and reaction within it), without any signs of core changes.

Moders have done basic steps towards it, being alone, in less than 5 months. Of course those mods arent really a Classic Mode, being made by a single developer in very little time. Friaxis can make a fully fleshed Classic Mode in a year or two

This isnt about being possible or not, the quesrtion is which decision they will make

I think it's optimistic estimation. If you come through the game features like buildings, unit upgrades or tech trees, full classic mode is really a new game, which just potentially shares some assets. That's 5 years minimum and that would mean stopping updating the current Civ7. All this looks like absolutely terrible decisions.

Civ7 has its audience, has its sales and with iterative improvements it will do fine with the current ages core. How fine it will be will affect decisions for Civ8, but not earlier. Even expansions are smaller in scope and won't allow it.

The development time for civ 7 until release was 6 years iirc (or at least more than 5). If they start on civ 8 right now and use civ 7 as a base for graphics and the turn-to-turn base game loop, they'd probably still needed until 2028.

Firaxis demonstrated prototype with age transition to 2K management on summer 2019, that's 5.5 years before release, but before presenting this prototype they already worked on the game for several years - the prototype is kind of playable game.

EDIT: It's hard to predict the speed of game development. On one hand, the development cycle grows with Civ7 taking more time than Civ6, Civ6 taking more time than Civ5, etc. On the other hand, at any time we could see AI development finally clicking together and greatly reducing those times. Or not. If we'll not see those AI tools making real effect on release speed, I'd say Civ8 would require probably 12 years to be done.

 

[WillK96]

Firaxis demonstrated prototype with age transition to 2K management on summer 2019, that's 5.5 years before release, but before presenting this prototype they already worked on the game for several years - the prototype is kind of playable game.

Where is the source for that? Incredible they had 5.5 years of post proto-type development and still released the worst received Civilization game of all time.

 

[Siptah]

Where is the source for that? Incredible they had 5.5 years of post proto-type development and still released the worst received Civilization game of all time.

They stated that they presented the prototype for civ 7 to 2k at the same time that Humankind was announced.

 

[AD1730]

Where is the source for that? Incredible they had 5.5 years of post proto-type development and still released the worst received Civilization game of all time.

Not that incredible really. AAA studios keep getting bigger, slower, and dumber while indie market share grows.

 

[McSpank01]

I don't see any bypassing of core features or rolling back important mechanics. Tuning which things are kept between ages and in which form is a normal part of software development.

I don't think that is the same as giving users the option to turn off basic core mechanics because they are not popular. That is not fine tuning.

I don't understand it. What do you mean "with no concept of what it means for how ages play out"? There shouldn't be any concept.

I don't understand what you mean. Game developers should have some understanding of what players should be aiming to do at each stage of the game, and will have tested to see how players are playing their game throughout. Removing Crises leave a big gameplay hole that Crises were meant to fill. It becomes incredibly obvious when you turn them off and there is really not very much to do at the end of an age other than end turn. Crises were partly designed to clearly add more tension to the end of an age, and give players something to manage, and to stop snowballing. There are not comparable to something like natural disasters in that way, they are part of the overall flow of how players manage their game.

They just were forced to release the game several months earlier than it would be good to and have to adapt to it.

Yes exactly, and they have to adapt to it by scrambling to fix the negative feedback that releasing an unfinished game has created. There doesn't appear to be a strategic, cohesive plan as to how to bring the game to it's intended final state, instead it is a matter of rushing to build in features that go against the core philosophy of the game, in order to pacify vocal players.

1. Most of the things Firaxis does, really improve the game.
2. Most of the things they do, look planned.
3. In the current state of the game (which is technically more like "early access") it's normal for features to have limited testing behind. There are too many areas of the game to improve at the same time

Again, I think its a matter of perspective. I think the game needs a lot more attention the minor tweaking it is getting, and the core focus of many of their changes are heavily centred on reversing many of the decisions of the game on release, rather than working on improvements. Turning of crises, pick your crisis, continuity mode etc, these are all backwards steps which were introduced because they didn't have the time to come up with real solutions. The point isn't to remove crises, its to make crises that feel interactive, immersive and relevant, not ones that just irritate and sit in the background. The decision to just rush to allow players to switch them off if they don't like them is cowardly and lazy. That would go for many of the choices they have made post launch.

At least you accept that this game has been released in an early access state.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't think that is the same as giving users the option to turn off basic core mechanics because they are not popular. That is not fine tuning.

As I was corrected, the ability to turn off all crises was in the game since release, so the whole argument is invalid. The only thing they added in process is to choose, which particular crises to disable, which fits the definition of fine tuning by any account.

At least you accept that this game has been released in an early access state.

I don't understand this "at least".