Why legacy points are one of my biggest concerns?

:| ? 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.
 
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:)).

You said they "enjoyed it well"!

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.



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.

You ignored my point: If someone enjoyed the media well *without* the end part of it, it means they enjoyed it mainly based on earlier parts. You can say "This game is good despite the dull end part", but it doesn't mean "This game is good because of the dull end part". Even they satisfied with the overall experience, it because of the other parts which is extremely fun. The end part is still failed and wasted.

Some games tried to fix it by narrowing the period that the game cover (like Paradox's ones or Old world) to exclude the dull part and re-set the playable and meaningful end part. But it can't be an option for Civilization, while we players expect at least the space rocket and nuclear bomb in this franchise. The endgame enhancement is what devs have to do for the new Civ game. So devs decided to make the end part enjoyable, by dividing playthrough with the Ages and focus to the unique mechanics and playstyle on each Age.

I can't understand why you say it's okay with the game's *worst* part. You said that you don't really play the end part of it often and just consider "I won this game so no need to play further". If so, why don't you say "cut this meaningless part out and please focus on the part of real fun" or "dev have to make it funnier to be playable"? Instead, you're saying "keep going to spend the dev cost to the part that I don't play, no problem with it", and it sounds very weird.
 
Last edited:
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.
If you took it I don't like your posts that was my intention. I enjoyed this discussion, but kinda still have my doubts ;) Having a good strategy on paper doesn't make it strong and viable and can only be a promise, not a proof :)
But you know perhaps legacy points are just a part of a problem I have with changing Civilizations over time. :)
This is why I am trying to find a solution to blur it.
 
If so, why don't you say "cut this meaningless part out and please focus on the part of real fun"
Well, I play through to the end a time or two when I first get the game. That stuff has to be there. Once I'm experienced with the game, though, I can tell whether I have any chance of winning or losing about 2/3 of the way in. If they just moved the ending up (the time at which victory conditions occur), it would just move up the time by which I know whether I'm going to win or lose.
 
Well, I play through to the end a time or two when I first get the game. That stuff has to be there. Once I'm experienced with the game, though, I can tell whether I have any chance of winning or losing about 2/3 of the way in. If they just moved the ending up (the time at which victory conditions occur), it would just move up the time by which I know whether I'm going to win or lose.
That because of snowball: you can't do same thing when AI rivals are still strong and competitive in the endgame stage.

However, I guess many players will still "give up" the endgame when AIs stand well till the end. In Civ 5, AIs spammed cities while players forced to play tall, and it caused the endgame AI superpowers. So technically Civ 5 endgame was still competitive, but my fellows chose to finish game earlier because of the stressful endgame.

So the "Considered Victory" without real VC is an ongoing problem for last several repeats of the franchise regardless of the AI weakness and snowball effect. I'll say it mainly because of the poor design of the modern game. The whole period of modern in previous Civ games was just "fulfilling the Victory Conditions".
 
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.
It is no secret that most people quit when they assume victory or loss. It has been admitted to and talked about for decades on these very forums. And Firaxis can now confirm it with data. The reason people quit is because the act of "going through the motions" to satisfy the win condition is tedious. Or an obvious loss, is an obvious loss - no need to play it out. The discussion of favorite victory conditions has been discussed on every release. And it always ends up with time/score coming in dead last if it even gets any favor shown to it at all. Because it is seen as the "losers victory" the "you ran out of time to win" victory. It isn't low, if it is just true, and there is data in this community to support it. It isn't about boasting pride, and 1-upping another community member, it is about discussing the motive of the developers.


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?
This is not a problem, unless you decide to begin debating against the game's design with that lack of knowledge. This thread has revealed a lack of knowledge about the legacy point system despite arguing against it. I wouldn't argue with an automotive mechanic over how a transmission works, if I don't know how a transmission works. No, Firaxis has NOT done this. They do not require you to ignore military, science, and economy, for culture. Or any other highly restrictive path. I explained how it works a couple times now.

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.
:| ? 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.
For someone who was quick to preach low morality, you seem to be not above speaking down to others yourself. Especially odd because you just admitted to not knowing details of gameplay mechanics but now you intend to tell me how you are so certain Firaxis has broken this game with a subtext of anyone like me needing a game to hold our hand and save us from any horrible thinking.

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.
That question is literally the definition of planning a strategy. What are you talking about?

If you find that question "extremely boring":
A. Why do you play strategy games?
B. By what criteria do you even form strategies?

I initially thought this thread was about making legacy points more flexible but also hadn't paid them too much attention. However, the more I learned to contribute to the conversation, the more it appears as though this was more about min-maxing. Every example provided has had the mentality of invest all or nothing. That is min-maxing. Which is a perfectly acceptable strategy, unless you have to change the rules to accomplish it. Once that is on the table, it becomes the ONLY viable strategy. You can still maximize return on investment in the current system. Science is not useless to a cultural civ, nor is military or economics. No need to redistribute your points. No civ game has even had them before and they aren't some overpowered addition. They are just small bonuses.
 
It isn't low, if it is just true, and there is data in this community to support it. It isn't about boasting pride, and 1-upping another community member, it is about discussing the motive of the developers.

You wrote that another person's perspective is against the grain in the community and that many players like a big victory moment that they build up to. Backed it up by the fact that civ6 is probably the most commercially succesful strategy game and has victory conditions.
I pointed out that it is false correlation.
I will repeat myself. In general writing a preference and backing it up with "majority thinks alike" (even if it would be a truth) is unneeded/low. It's a trick to make your opinion looks bigger. Completely unnecessary in a civil discussion.

What is more a poll of 27 votes, without options like "I don't care about any victory" or "I never go for any victory" from the game without split ages, is irrevelant. I hope you understand that.
Was it even a multi-select poll? For people who like both military/score victories?
That question is literally the definition of planning a strategy. What are you talking about?

If you find that question "extremely boring":
A. Why do you play strategy games?
B. By what criteria do you even form strategies?
I feel like I am repeating myself but the most interesting criterias are based on current in-game situation (interaction with other players, eventually a map).
If an option A is always a green button then it is not a good strategy game.
Maybe third time you will not interpolate my response into some nonsense and then answer it.
This is not a problem, unless you decide to begin debating against the game's design with that lack of knowledge. This thread has revealed a lack of knowledge about the legacy point system despite arguing against it. I wouldn't argue with an automotive mechanic over how a transmission works, if I don't know how a transmission works. No, Firaxis has NOT done this. They do not require you to ignore military, science, and economy, for culture. Or any other highly restrictive path. I explained how it works a couple times now.
Nobody here knows "how a transmission works", do you mean that we shouldn't discuss anything at all?
Threads' topics are fluent, not only limited to title or even an opening post. We are also discussing victory conditions, leader attributes, snowball, civ switching... and more.

I care more about a general gameplay loop and concepts than a specific balance. We have a simple abstract situation. Game split into 3 ages with hard resets, lingering bonuses, victory rules that apply only in third age, reward trees. I don't need details to discuss it. If anything the knowledge that option A is available at B and has value of C is irrevelant to me.
For someone who was quick to preach low morality, you seem to be not above speaking down to others yourself. Especially odd because you just admitted to not knowing details of gameplay mechanics but now you intend to tell me how you are so certain Firaxis has broken this game with a subtext of anyone like me needing a game to hold our hand and save us from any horrible thinking.
I am sorry, I wrote my previous response in the same style you write your posts. Glad you noticed it.
Though the part about thinking was not targeted at "anyone like you" but at "anyone" or even more at "anyone like me who claim they would like to think during game".
However the concept that players may actually don't like "a good strategy game that makes them think", even if interesting, probably does not belong to this thread.

All your posts remind me of journalism. You ignore/twist arguments and data. I admitted that I do not know details and you immediately bold it and attack me like it is a big deal. "You are not an expErT - stay silent!" Again, it is just low.
We can be better than american media.
 
You wrote that another person's perspective is against the grain in the community and that many players like a big victory moment that they build up to. Backed it up by the fact that civ6 is probably the most commercially succesful strategy game and has victory conditions.
I pointed out that it is false correlation.
I will repeat myself. In general writing a preference and backing it up with "majority thinks alike" (even if it would be a truth) is unneeded/low. It's a trick to make your opinion looks bigger. Completely unnecessary in a civil discussion.
The truth is not a "trick" and it is civil discussion to speak the truth even if it isn't what some people want to hear. I know what it is like to have my opinion be against the grain of the community. Civ 4 released and I didn't like the new model initially. There are threads of me discussing that here in the archives and most users here trashed Civ 3, my favorite at the time. The BTS Expansion cured a lot of my issues with 4 and it to this day remains my favorite Civ game to date. Civ 5 had so many issues with it from my perspective that never got better from my perspective, but it was a bigger seller. It brought in many new people to the series. Despite my disdain for the game, it was a great addition to the series because the community loved it and it grew the fanbase. I sat back and waited for Civ 6 while the community enjoyed 5. Civ 6, I was excited for - but it mostly disappointed me in the end. Yet, it is held in very high regard with the community.

Being against the grain isn't an insult unless you have an unhealthy desire to be in the majority for validation. However, being against the grain is knowledge worth knowing if you can accept it. The devs aren't going to shift the entire game's design for the minority of fans, nor should they, if we want to see Civ 10.
For the record, you pointed out what you THINK is a false correlation, I do not. I can support my view with examples of game developers who admit to copying Civ's formula. Civilization has been a market leader for a while, and while I think multiple aspects of Civ have catapulted it to the top of the sales charts. Multiple victories being one of them.

As this is a civil discussion, it would be ideal for you to offer a perspective, supported by examples (even if merely conjecture) so we can discuss it. Not simply tell me I am mean and wrong with no counter perspective as though this is an argument and not a civil discussion.

What is more a poll of 27 votes, without options like "I don't care about any victory" or "I never go for any victory" from the game without split ages, is irrevelant. I hope you understand that.
Was it even a multi-select poll? For people who like both military/score victories?
I just searched favorite victories and grabbed one from Civ 6. There are a lot more polls and discussion threads on the subject here and it always turns out the same. Everyone talks down on score victories in the discussion as "participation trophies". It is relevant because people have long held opinions of favorite victory types and why. Split Ages is just you adding criteria in an effort to invalidate the point. Being a sequel, this game had to be developed on the criteria (like victory preference) provided by previous iterations of the game. If you want to see more, just search "favorite victory" using the website's search function. It is conjecture reference data used to loosely support my perspective, something you have not provided to help me understand your perspective better. I am legitimately trying to understand your perspective, but you seem to not be interested in explaining your perspective, just rather are spending your time trying to invalidate my views on your perspective.

For example:
I say "By what criteria do you even form strategies?" if you find it extremely boring to ask "will I benefit or not benefit from it in next age?" because that is the primary question most people use to form strategies.
You respond:
I feel like I am repeating myself but the most interesting criterias are based on current in-game situation (interaction with other players, eventually a map).
If an option A is always a green button then it is not a good strategy game.
Maybe third time you will not interpolate my response into some nonsense and then answer it.
"Based on current in-game situation", "interaction with other players" and "eventually a map" does not in any way form a strategy. Those aren't even complete sentences. Where is this green button you keep talking about? Use actual examples of gameplay so I can better understand. Don't just make up a pretend green button. Use Civ 1-6 examples. Reference the gameplay videos you say you haven't watched, watch them real quick, skip the little progress bar at the bottom to what you are wanting to reference to give me an example so we can actually have a civil discussion, and you don't say random things not based on actual game knowledge and expect me to just be able to know what you are talking about.
I have no choice but to extrapolate what you are trying to say because you only offer incomplete ideas or metaphors like "green buttons" and give no proper context to relate it to the actual game mechanics that have been revealed. You don't even reference a genralized mechanic. Is the green button referring to legacy points? Civ switching? Attribute points? Victory Conditions? I don't know because you won't make a direct statement.

Nobody here knows "how a transmission works", do you mean that we shouldn't discuss anything at all?
Threads' topics are fluent, not only limited to title or even an opening post. We are also discussing victory conditions, leader attributes, snowball, civ switching... and more.
We have had all 3 Ages mechanics revealed. We do know how a transmission works. We don't know how it works in tandem with the motor, we can find some areas where we don't know how the whole automobile works as a whole, but we do have enough information to get a good idea. The fluency of these threads makes it even more vital that you be specific with your comments. It is unfair for you to be vague and then mock someone for not understanding exactly what you meant.

I care more about a general gameplay loop and concepts than a specific balance. We have a simple abstract situation. Game split into 3 ages with hard resets, lingering bonuses, victory rules that apply only in third age, reward trees. I don't need details to discuss it. If anything the knowledge that option A is available at B and has value of C is irrevelant to me.

I disagree because that is how all the pieces connect. Not all "transmissions" connect to all "motors" universally. You can't just plug any gameplay concept into another and end up with the same result. For example, your initial comment where you were summarizing you stated:
I think I can summarize concerns:
-Creating a gameplay in which you are rewarded from specific actions in future eras will create very narrow experience...
Every strategy game does this. Obtaining horses allows you to create cavalry moving forward, building a library allows you to make more science faster in the future, collecting resources, etc. Skyrim allows you to get better at using swords in the future if you use a sword often. RPGs in general allow you to level up and make decisions. Now days, they even allow you dialogue decisions with varied rewards you can't undo as it appeals to the market for replay value.

A statement as vague as this has to be extrapolated. This describes every game after Atari. Pac-man and Pong did not do this. "Rewarding specific actions" goes all the way back to Mario with hidden warp zones. This is a blanket statement that summarizes video games as a whole almost. Really, even any game with a win state has this. "Do this specific action" > "Reward = Win". If you want to have civil discussion, you need to be able to speak about specific aspects to help paint a picture of the bigger picture. You can't paint everything with a huge brush that covers all of video games and then get offended by someone failing to see your point.

I am sorry, I wrote my previous response in the same style you write your posts. Glad you noticed it.
Though the part about thinking was not targeted at "anyone like you" but at "anyone" or even more at "anyone like me who claim they would like to think during game".
However the concept that players may actually don't like "a good strategy game that makes them think", even if interesting, probably does not belong to this thread.

All your posts remind me of journalism. You ignore/twist arguments and data. I admitted that I do not know details and you immediately bold it and attack me like it is a big deal. "You are not an expErT - stay silent!" Again, it is just low.
We can be better than american media.
Don't worry, I don't get offended sharing my views with others. Good conversation challenges our perspectives. I point it out because hypocrisy destroys civil conversation. If you want to mock my argument, feel free, I appreciate a good joke at the expense of my limited perspective. Sometimes I can be shortsighted and miss obvious details or can explain something in a silly/unclear way and I can't get mad at someone making fun of that. Additionally, it isn't worth getting mad at the many online that just want to hate the opinions of others and have nothing to add to a conversation except their emotional views. It is for this reason I try to discourage such discussion and try to help it move forward in specific ways we all benefit from. But pride is an unstoppable force online and so I am going to have fun with it. My words are never meant to make you feel bad but they are meant to challenge your views. To some, pride makes this feels the same.

I also would like to think during a game. However, your views on this game's mechanics (that you have not specified) seem to be at odds with mine somehow. I try to get you to further explain your view by pointing out where your comments are vague and extrapolate a guess only to be mocked and dismissed. And the only explanation you have given is it is because you like to think. This would imply that you believe that I do not like to think.

Just because you say I am twisting your argument doesn't mean its true. You seem to be twisting the argument to be about me, my morals, and my personality - and not the game. I keep trying to get you to give a more detailed explanation of your view of the game so I can understand it. You keep giving vague statements that don't directly apply to Civ 7 or any game or mechanic. You don't give any specific examples of anything. You just say random metaphors or basic concepts like "green button" or "predetermined best decision" or "based on current situation". This isn't even gameplay design discussion, it is ironically, journalism buzz phrases. Kinda funny you accused me of that.

Not knowing details of a game design you are arguing against IS a big deal in a discussion about the details of the game design. I have asked you to elaborate, not stay silent. I have pointed out problems with your explanation or potential misunderstandings in your perspective. All in an effort to get you to better explain your view - as that is what I am more interested in. If your next post is simply to discredit my personality with no real conversation about the game, I will be satisfied to just leave this conversation to cobwebs.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom