Why legacy points are one of my biggest concerns?

[Lord Lakely]

There's countless games out there that end at a set point to calculate score, and work just fine. If Civ's time/score victory is long and boring, it's a failure of the devs to properly develop what should be an integral part of the game, not an indictment of the idea of score victories as a concept.

This is so true. If the Score Victory is dull, it means the endgame is dull and offers no challenge.

Using the crutches of arbitrary victory condition instead of actually improving the original victory conditions is not good game design. It's lazy wallpapering - and it's meant that instead of making the reasonable victory conditions work better, the game has just been shunting them to a quiet corner and pretending they don't exist. Moreover, any number of game features exist exclusively or almost exclusively to serve the needs of this or that victory condition, and become useless if you disable it ; meaning that entire areas of human history just vanish from game relevance if you turn off the relevant victory conditions. where all aspects of the game should be able to contribute to the score victory. Tying too many aspects of history and the game exclusively into vicory condition means those aspects vanish from the game if you turn off those condition.

Every Victory Condition should serve a purpose from a gameplay perspective above all.

An elective victory (Dip) should be designed to end the game early from a dominant position. Civ5 did this fairly well. Civ6 turned it into a random-arse scavenger hunt for points where you could win by accident when you weren't even trying.

A Domination victory, at least in early 4Xers was merely a way to end the game if all opponents were eliminated. It was not intended as a means to an end, just a safeguard so you wouldn't play on until the tile limit.

Similarly, Scientific, Cultural and Economic victory, if you do have them in, should represent your dominance in that certain field.

A Scientific Win should involve clearing the Tech tree
An Economic victory should involve literally paying your way into a win
A Cultural victory should oversee your contributions to world heritage in some way.

I'm not sure whether Civ7's systems do this correctly. It certainly feels a bit samey and that's a shame.

 

[LastSword]

To those who missed initial announcement period. The entire deal about civ 7 is that almost nobody finishes games at all, as stated by Firaxis, backed up by their internal data. Nobody really cares about victory rules. You are all in minority. In general, stating a preference and backing it up with "majority thinks like me" (especially without any data) is just low.

Basically Firaxis claimed that the main issue is that players get bored once they are ahead/equal to AI civs because they know they won. And yet they are making those openings for human player to gain more and more advantage each era.

? We don't know about AI handicap. Maybe it works gradually, AI will gain extra stuff each era to keep things spicy.

? I don't truely follow details on gameplay info, however I don't believe that even Firaxis would mess gameplay so much that all players will go full culture in ancient era all the time. Would they?

! Both civ switching and leader attributes are unfortunately reward trees. Firaxis doesn't have a good history in making balanced and engaging reward trees.

If anything, civ 7 proven that people have concrete minds. It melted them, causing initial outrage, however once they cooled down they turned to concrete again. Suddenly things that didn't work out in other titles, and were even ridiculed, are cool and the only rightful way for civ series. If civ 8 would do a leader switching, wonders having trait slots (cool idea btw) then people would accept it in 1984-esque fashion again.

Interesting take on it. Most people tend to like being rewarded (consequences) to specific actions. I fail to see how this directly translates to a more "narrow experience" instead of a more versatile experience. If every choice rewards you in the same way, any "choice" is removed and you are left only with a "narrow experience".

I understand the desire to want more flexibility but this creates a dichotomy:

Easier to win regardless of choices (Always being able to adapt your choices to a winnable condition)
vs.
More choices with consequences. (Disjointed strategies do not work as well as synergized strategies)

I do not think that many fans of strategy games will like the former game design.

:| ? What is this interpolation? It is nothing about flexibility, it is about: "will I benefit or not benefit from it in next age?" is an extremely boring factor to evaluate decisions by.
Perfect strategy game in general would like for the optimal choice to be based on situation. In reality it is quite hard to implement, if the best choice would be optimal only in 70% scenarios it would already be a meaningful decision.
If you have predetermined best decision, some kind of guide you can follow, do this, do this, then it is already a braindead game.
Game-meta based on setting up the best possible start for next scenario not only would be one-dimensional but also ruin the goal Firaxis set for themselves. For players to finish their games.

I understand the desire to have brainless decisions, to just click green button instead of red one, instant gratification. And I am not joking, our brains are actually that lazy. Thinking is bad.

Actually, the more specific the system, the easier it is to get AI to value it properly. AI usually doesn't do very well with ambiguous or vague strategic decisions. It is easier if you use something like legacy points as they work as a "carrot on a stick" for the AI to follow. Mixing this with having your civ picks be tied to previous traits, or something similar, you could even lead the AI to making smart civ picks.

AI in games is not based on machine learning. AI does not follow, it wanders unless heavily scripted.

What if one of those above was:
"Reasign 4 of your leader Attribute Points in any way" Cost 1"

It is actually kind of cool. Probably extremely weak, yet an option for those who are more into roleplaying and do not want to replay each age in the same manner.

 

[Evie]

I like the idea of a "dominant civ" victory in the abstract, but I don't like the idea of the game ending because you reached one radom threshold just one turn earlier than the other civ was going to reach the other threshold. That doesn't seem like a dominant position ; that seems like two dominant civs still in a closely matched competition with each having their strength and weaknesses.

I think a good domination or hegemonic victory would involve being dominant across a certain number of sphere (but not all of them), while none of your rivals are close to that number.

 

[Gori the Grey]

The entire deal about civ 7 is that almost nobody finishes games at all, as stated by Firaxis, backed up by their internal data.

The following comment is kind of tangential to the discussion that we're having in this thread, so everyone can feel free to ignore it, but your comment (combined with having played some games of chess with the fam over Christmas visit) makes me wonder: is failure to play all the way to the end even a problem in a strategy game? How many games of chess are played out until the final checkmate, vs one player toppling his king because that player sees how things will eventually play out?

I keep all my old saves, then I put them in folders; one of the folders is titled "call it a win," and I'm perfectly happy with the games in that folder--had a ton of fun playing to that stage, then fired up a new start.

but I don't like the idea of the game ending because you reached one radom threshold just one turn earlier than the other civ was going to reach the other threshold

We're so different! If a Civ game could always end by my beating the opponents by one turn, or them beating me by one, I would count that as the very definition of a perfectly designed game (and AI)! A thrilling game-playing experience.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

How many games of chess are played out until the final checkmate, vs one player toppling his king because that player sees how things will eventually play out?

Legacy points change how the game is played for a player. There's no equivalent to chess.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Legacy points change how the game is played for a player. There's no equivalent to chess.

I was asking as a priorities-in-game-design question: i.e. even if it's a known fact that Civ players don't play their games to the very end, is that a problem worth inventing a bunch of game mechanics to solve?

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

I was asking as a priorities-in-game-design question: i.e. even if it's a known fact that Civ players don't play their games to the very end, is that a problem worth inventing a bunch of game mechanics to solve?

Since the game has to put additional detail and resources into the late game to represent the passage of time due to its historical theme, making the stuff unique to the late game something that isn’t a slog to get to is valuable, imo.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Well, for the designers, yes. They don't want to see all of their efforts "wasted" by people not playing that portion of the game.

 

[gdr_willter]

I was asking as a priorities-in-game-design question: i.e. even if it's a known fact that Civ players don't play their games to the very end, is that a problem worth inventing a bunch of game mechanics to solve?

Of cource. When you are an author, if many of your readers put down your book before the end and say "I can't finished it but enjoyed it well anyway", your book have a problem that it can't push the readers to the planned end so you'd better to fix it.

No problem with just enjoying the early game, but if so many players do that, the dev's effort and resources are just wasted in the late game which is not really played for anyone. If so, FXS have to choose the solution between excluding it or enhancing it.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Of cource. When you are an author, if many of your readers put down your book before the end and say "I can't finished it but enjoyed it well anyway", your book have a problem that it can't push the readers to the planned end so you'd better to fix it.

But by this principle, we'd have to say chess is a poorly designed game, since players routinely resign before its very end. The Mac Daddy of all Games!

(Hey, they bought the book; they had what fun they wanted with it. Paradise Lost notoriously drops off after 10 books (in the 12-book division of the poem)).

Maybe, in addition to the easy data from Steam about games played to the end, they could have done a customer survey: "and are you upset by that fact?"

 

[gdr_willter]

But by this principle, we'd have to say chess is a poorly designed game, since players routinely resign before its very end.

Chess is a competition, so surrender is a kind of "end". The chess players don't say "Hey we enjoyed this match so let's just stop here without exact winner."

In Civ games (single-player), AIs don't surrender the game, so players have to finish the victory conditions to "end" the match technically. If they don't, they have to just consider themselves as winner when any systems in the game don't say they win or finished the match. It works, but you can't say it is well-designed way of the game ending.

(Hey, they bought the book; they had what fun they wanted with it. Paradise Lost notoriously drops off after 10 books (in the 12-book division of the poem)).

But they paid more than what they wanted, so why don't you call it "predatory pricing"? If the book excluded the last several pages it can be cheaper for a few dollars.

And hey, you can't just compare the classical literature with modern entertainments.

Maybe, in addition to the easy data from Steam about games played to the end, they could have done a customer survey: "and are you upset by that fact?"

I'm saying it is still a problem even when players satisfied enough with the unfinished play experience. If so, devs are just wasting their opportunity cost for the contents which not be played and even wanted.

 

[King Flevance]

Some possible Civ transitions are limited (Greece can go into A or B. not all) there will be a very limited number of "must play" Civs. To show it on hard numbers we must wait for more info about Civ transitions.
The use case we have:
Rome is cultural and militaristic and can change into Spain (militaristic, expansionist) or Normans (diplomatic/militaristic). So if you start a cultural game like Rome you are at a dead-end Neither Spain nor Normans can follow it up and build your cultural legacy tree that will help you in the last era with your cultural game. On top of that if you already played a culture Roman game for like 2 hours at this point you know you are kinda screwed Reasonable is to play Rome militaristic and then change into either Spain or Normans. If you pick militaristic Spain you can change to Mexico (Cultural, Diplomatic) -> another dead end You get the pattern. So how many Civ combinations will fit the pattern? (whatever it will be) A few. If you don't believe me just wait for the first build tier lists and see all those "unplayable" civs

That is why more flexible legacy points are needed. To make a Civ-path in the for example cultural game more... playable and less predictable. To be as you believe in

This actually helps more as it is a real example that uses known game mechanics.

So first, let's remember that you need to pick a leader. Considering that, in this example, you started as Rome and began a cultural game, in the game setup you probably already knew you were going to attempt this. You could unlock a cultural civ in the exploration age just by who you pick. So a good candidate for you is Ibn Battuta. First he automatically unlocks the Abbasids (Cultural/Economic) in Exploration Age. And you will probably like that he will grant you 2 free attribute points after your first civic in every Age. I also suspect that some civics will grant attribute points. So there you have a more flexible leader and he happens to unlock a continued cultural path for you in this example. However, let's ignore this and say you instead chose Isabella. (Because I have a video for reference to use in a worst case scenario example.)

Rome is cultural and militaristic, this gives you 4 custom policies all game long. So to continue to pursue a cultural strategy, you still have access to:

1. Cursus Honorum - Building military units grants equal to 25% of its production cost.
2. Latinitas -+10% , , in towns with a specialization
3. Princeps Civitatis - +1 on urban districts in your capital

Now, these don't seem like a ton of help individually but they could add up and be useful. You will have cultural attribute points available as well going into the Exploration Age. A well as the option to have your wonders provide an extra culture and happiness per turn. (if you spend 2 legacy points on it) Your cultural attribute points will, generally speaking, let you generate more culture if you invest them there. However, to pursue culture in Exploration Age you will need relics, not simply culture, which means you will want to be playing into the religion aspect of the game. We don't have a lot of information about how this is done but we do know religion plays a role but so do the 'random events'. So if you have Isabella to work with, in Spain having an easier time supporting a large navy can help you spread your religion to the new world. (Probably helpful with relics) You do have access to some culture yield output but not sure how helpful that is for relics. I would imagine civic research is a key component though.

So running Latinitas (as a carry over from Rome) and specializing your towns would help, as would building Casa Consistorial to help push +5 culture in a couple cities. But devising a detailed strategy around relics isn't really feasible until we find out more about that apsect of gameplay. However, your attribute points only help you generate culture. Something you could forfeit in Age 2 if absolutely necessary and build up your economics and science, then swing back into it with Mexico in Age 3. (Guaranteed) By prioritizing archaeology in Age 3 you could beat your opponents there. And if you do you, we established that you got 3 cultural legacy points in Age 1, and you would have to have 3 in Age 3 or else the victory wouldn't even be possible so you would have a minimum of at least 6/9 (65%) legacy points boosting you forward in this example. You could even have 7-9 points depending on what path you prioritized in Age2. If you were the first one to house 15 artifacts in the modern Age by prioritizing, you would most likely take the World Fair Victory even without getting all 9 points.

Now, this all is just staring at limited information of the mechanics and there are certainly things unseen that this example cannot illustrate but you can see how a strategy could be formed within the known limitations that doesn't require you to be cultural. You have always been able to win cultural victories in Civ without having a civ with a cultural trait. Since it is no longer about simply amassing culture points beyond a threshold it has become an even more challenging and flexible victory condition. I am also really glad to see that an economic victory has finally came into the series.

Alternatively, just pick Ibn Battuta, pick the Abbasids, get 6 bonus attribute points to spend however you want, plus the cultural trait in the Exploration Age.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

To me, working within your limitations is one of the most fun aspects of these games.

This idea makes it too easy to pivot, and it also reduces the impact of every decision. Decisions don’t matter and aren’t fun if it’s so easy to just undo them.

The best way to work with limitations is to skip them and choose a combination of Civs that gives you the highest boost. Those combinations are not a result of your decisions and strategy but predefined civ paths rigidly set by designers.
It doesn't sound fun and satisfying for me

 

[Gori the Grey]

The chess players don't say "Hey we enjoyed this match so let's just stop here without exact winner."

I think most players who quit Civ without playing to the end say to themselves either "I've got this wrapped up," or "there's no way I can win this" (i.e. that victory is determined one way or another). It's the exact same thing that one player effectively says when that player concedes a chess match (and the winner knows the resignation was coming too).

But they paid more than what they wanted, so why don't you call it "predatory pricing"?

You said they "enjoyed it well"!

If so, devs are just wasting their opportunity cost for the contents which not be played and even wanted.

The stuff has to be there for games that do go to that stage.

My question is this: is player dissatisfaction with ending a game before victory enough to warrant your primary design focus in the next iteration. I think the sheer number of unfinished games is not sufficient evidence on that point.

Those combinations are not a result of your decisions and strategy

Well, choosing a civ that helps get you to your desired victory condition could be considered a "decision" and a "strategy."

I don't know Civ VI, so my example has to come from Civ V, but there, if you want a science victory, choosing Babylon or Korea is a good starting move.

 

[Zaarin]

The best way to work with limitations is to skip them and choose a combination of Civs that gives you the highest boost.

Why? Playing "optimally" is not a goal for me in a single-player game. If it's fun, I don't care if it's optimal.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

This actually helps more as it is a real example that uses known game mechanics.

So first, let's remember that you need to pick a leader. Considering that, in this example, you started as Rome and began a cultural game, in the game setup you probably already knew you were going to attempt this. You could unlock a cultural civ in the exploration age just by who you pick. So a good candidate for you is Ibn Battuta. First he automatically unlocks the Abbasids (Cultural/Economic) in Exploration Age. And you will probably like that he will grant you 2 free attribute points after your first civic in every Age. I also suspect that some civics will grant attribute points. So there you have a more flexible leader and he happens to unlock a continued cultural path for you in this example. However, let's ignore this and say you instead chose Isabella. (Because I have a video for reference to use in a worst case scenario example.)

Rome is cultural and militaristic, this gives you 4 custom policies all game long. So to continue to pursue a cultural strategy, you still have access to:

1. Cursus Honorum - Building military units grants equal to 25% of its production cost.
2. Latinitas -+10% , , in towns with a specialization
3. Princeps Civitatis - +1 on urban districts in your capital

Now, these don't seem like a ton of help individually but they could add up and be useful. You will have cultural attribute points available as well as the ability to have your wonders provide an extra culture and happiness per turn if you spend 2 points on it. Your cultural attribute points will generally let you generate more culture if you invest them there. However, to pursue culture in Exploration Age you will need relics, which means you will want to be playing into the religion aspect of the game. We don't have a lot of information about how this is done but we do know religion plays a role but so do the 'random events'. If you have Isabella to work with, in Spain having an easier time supporting a large navy can help you spread your religion to the new world. (Probably helpful with relics) You do have access to some culture yield output but not sure how helpful that is for relics. I would imagine civic research is a key component though.

So running Latinitas and specializing your towns would help, as would building Casa Consistorial to help push +5 culture in a couple cities. But really pushing for a strategy around relics isn't really feasible until we find out more about that apsect of gameplay. However, your attribute points only help you generate culture. Something you could forfeit in Age 2 if absolutely necessary and build up your economics and science, then swing back into it with Mexico in Age 3. (Guaranteed) By prioritizing archaeology in Age 3 you could beat your opponents there. And if you do you, we established that you got 3 cultural legacy points in Age 1, and you would have to have 3 in Age 3 or else the victory wouldn't even be possible so you would have a minimum of at least 6/9 (65%) legacy points boosting you forward in this example. You could even have 7-9 points depending on what path you prioritized in Age2. If you were the first one to house 15 artifacts in the modern Age by prioritizing, you would most likely take the World Fair Victory even without getting all 9 points.

Now, this all is just staring at limited information of the mechanics and there are certainly things unseen that this example cannot illustrate but you can see how a strategy could be formed within the known limitations that doesn't require you to be cultural. You have always been able to win cultural victories in Civ without having a civ with a cultural trait. Since it is no longer about simply amassing culture points beyond a threshold it has become an even more challenging and flexible victory condition. I am also really glad to see that an economic victory has finally came into the series.

Perhaps this is an interesting strategy (and let's say it will work in the real game not on paper), but what does this prove? That you can build some strategy based on cultural Rome? Nobody doubts it. The problem is how this strategy works compared to the others.

 

[Leucarum]

I think most players who quit Civ without playing to the end say to themselves either "I've got this wrapped up," or "there's no way I can win this" (i.e. that victory is determined one way or another). It's the exact same thing that one player effectively says when that player concedes a chess match (and the winner knows the resignation was coming too).

This game isn't going to be especially exciting/different from hereon in is also a major reason. Especially once you have a lot of hours into a Civ-style game.

I don't think the next age will be especially fun could be a major one for 7 I suspect too. I wonder if the age transition will end up being a natural "game end" for a lot of playthroughs...

 

[King Flevance]

Perhaps this is an interesting strategy (and let's say it will work in the real game not on paper), but what does this prove? That you can build some strategy based on cultural Rome? Nobody doubts it. The problem is how this strategy works compared to the others.

It proves that the gameplay is viable as is. You literally doubted it with your last post. How are you proving the opposite with your examples? I am not arguing as much as I am discussing your concerns about the game design. If I have concerns about an upcoming title, I actually like it if others can point something out that alleviates my concerns. If you are determined to be a naysayer, its not like I can stop you.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

:| ? What is this interpolation? It is nothing about flexibility, it is about: "will I benefit or not benefit from it in next age?" is an extremely boring factor to evaluate decisions by.
Perfect strategy game in general would like for the optimal choice to be based on situation. In reality it is quite hard to implement, if the best choice would be optimal only in 70% scenarios it would already be a meaningful decision.
If you have predetermined best decision, some kind of guide you can follow, do this, do this, then it is already a braindead game.
Game-meta based on setting up the best possible start for next scenario not only would be one-dimensional but also ruin the goal Firaxis set for themselves. For players to finish their games.

This is my concern. On the surface era transitions and picking a new civilization will be meaningful, but in the end, it will come to picking a meta-based Civ. Apart from eras, one thing doesn't change. You still have 4 predefined victory conditions in the last era. So no matter what is in between from turn one you know where to go. Sooner or later you will find a meta to get there in the most efficient way. This is why I was a little bit disappointed after a modern-era stream. That's all about the minority problems.

You might be right about one thing. Those two milestones (the end of the antiquity era and the end of the exploration era) can improve the percentage of completed games because it will give the motivation to pursue reachable rewards. If this was their main KPI they might succeed. Unless a lot of people will be pissed they cannot pick America from turn one, or they must leave Rome after antiquity

Great post btw.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Why? Playing "optimally" is not a goal for me in a single-player game. If it's fun, I don't care if it's optimal.

Ok. That's why I said it should be an option.
If you don't like it you can turn it off. But why not give this option to those who play this way and would be happy with it?