#Continuity Mode Discussion

18 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

languid dock
#

I want to have a discussion about continuity mode. Its got some good individual parts to it, but I fear its maybe more of a problem than a good thing.

Sometimes, the general sentiment here that ‘more options is better’ but I'm not sure about that. I think we’re already hitting a bit of ‘Settings Bloat’, and while a lot of settings are good, some of the recent ones I think are a problem. I do have a few ideas of how to deal with it.

The Problems:

Balance
It’s going to be impossible to balance a game with Regroup & Continuity as 2 established game modes because they are so fundamentally different. If one is fine, people will complain about the other. Snowballing is already out of control!

Coherent Vision
The game is really suffering from a lack of coherent vision in my view. A lot of the recent changes appear to be quick fixes for complex problems and I don’t feel that they are landing. The game is moving much further away from Dev Diary 1. The ‘history is built in layers’, and ‘creation, growth, crisis, and rebirth’ themes are nowhere really to be seen.

Transition in Name only
I don’t believe this will help anyone. Those that don’t want to transition will say its too much, and those that like the new framework would prefer better solutions.

Why not just keep both options?

Split in community (multiplayer)
Game enforced rules are always better than player enforced ones when it comes to multiplayer. Options are great when it adds to replayability, but I really can’t think of any games where changing the core mechanics via advanced settings has been good.

Problem Solved??
I don’t want the devs to see continuity mode as a fix for the complicated problems that still need addressing with regards to age transitions. For example, with regards to unit location after transition the available options are: ‘Current location’ or ‘random location’ which represent 2 complete extremes. Surely there is a middle ground that works better.

#

Good ideas from continuity mode
There are some good changes in continuity that would improve the 'default' mode.

SOLUTION:

Moving forward, have just 1 game mode that is officially supported and balanced, and then have a ‘Custom’ button that contains all of the continuity changes.

The officially supported mode should include some of the great changes made in Continuity, providing the balancing devs feel that they are good for the default game. E.g. scouts & siege units persisting is probably a good general change, but settlers and ships are more problematic for balance, especially in early Exploration, and would need to be carefully thought about.

The various Continuity changes should then be added to a ‘Custom’ option list, with each option listed 1 by 1, with tick boxes and sliders, plus a way to save a custom config to share with others. That way each change can be individually toggled and some items can have box where you type in a number or move a slider (e.g. min. no of turns @ end of age, or gold to be keep after transition). But anyone that uses this knows they would be straying from the vanilla balance of the game.

#

My Opinion on each Continuity Change:

Min. turns at end of age – Good change, though I think perhaps 5 turns might be a better option, and should likely be related to age speed not just a single value.
Retention of more units – Scouts – good, Migrants & Merchants – OK, Settlers – Potentially problematic.
Military – Siege Units – good, Naval Units – Potentially problematic.
Units staying in location – Not suitable for base game.
Keeping alliances – Not suitable for base game.
Independent Powers – In need of a more complex rework.
Building Retaining base yields and reduced maintenance - Good change, but some rebalancing maybe needed.
Gold & Influence Retention – Problematic in current balance due to some crazy yields. If the yields can be normalised then a good change. Other option is giving players a secondary use for excess gold/influence at the end of an age so that it doesn’t feel wasted.

ashen willow
#

Don't agree with everything, but as always well thought out detailed post, Thank you @languid dock

#

But especially love the custom options idea.

young stone
#

I think this is a good topic. I wanted to do a longer post on this, but IMHO, the issue with continuity options is that Ages are not Civs first anti-snowballing mechanic, they’re just different.

Civ has always used a mix of “speed limiters” to prevent runaway snowballing. Districts got more expensive the further in the tech tree you went, techs would cost more if you got ahead of the global era, citizens required housing and amenity options that were locked behind later techs and further landmasses, etc.

What I liked about VII is that it replaces a lot of these speed limits with an off-ramp at age transition. You can have a huge Roman Empire with a massive Rome by turn 100, and then the age transition stops you from steamrolling the next age (to an extent).

Now, one thing I’ve noticed is that some players just seem to viscerally dislike any limits. The settlement cap is a speed limit, rather than an off ramp, and that’s hated just as much.

I think there’s sort of a paradox here where VII does a better job of telling you what limits are in place and how to overcome them compared to past games, but as a result, people now notice it and dislike it more strongly.

The end result is they’re taking away the off ramps without adding more speed limits, and it makes the game less interesting.

ashen willow
languid dock
young stone
#

So, the other thing I wanted to touch on is that I think there’s an over focus on mechanics of Age Transition, when the issues are more with the “vibes”.

That is, I think what upsets people most is that it feels like the game just ends and starts over. It quite literally kicks you back to a post-game XP screen (that still seems to be bugged) and then has you pick a civilization from a new menu. When you get back, all of the models have changed to the new civ.

IMHO, I think the best way to improve “continuity” without breaking the gameplay loop is to fix the “vibes”. Replace the weird “match recap” screen with something in-game.

Most importantly, I think having later ages show a blend of unit and building models would be perfect.

I also think adding more narrative structure to show it’s not “everyone leaves and new people are here now”. There’s a really good Nepal narrative event that talks about keeping their old language (past Civ) or mandating Nepalese in schools. Shawnee also has a whole chain of excellent events.

languid dock
young stone
# languid dock I think if the game did a better job of 'selling' its vision with mechanics and ...

Yea, I think there could be some mechanical improvements. In particular, I would like some stuff with crises.

What I mean by mechanical is that they seem to be seeing people offer feedback that their game doesn’t feel “continuous” or that the age change is “abrupt”, and fixing that by just keeping more mechanical things constant, when I think the “discontinuous” feeling comes more from the aesthetic and narrative elements.

As a counterfactual, I think a mechanical and narrative rework that emphasized crises and “what actually drives age transition” would feel more “continuous” despite keeping less “stuff” mechanically.

graceful stratus
languid dock
young stone
#

One other thing I want to bring up with continuity is that it greatly devalues the Golden Ages. IMHO, they were already arguably worse than taking 2 Attribute Points, but it usually works out that you can use the wildcard point + a 3rd point to take one if you wanted.

Broadly, most of the Golden Ages were “ignore an age transition penalty”, and now all except the religious golden age are partly kept by default.

Now, I imagine these will eventually get reworked to an extent, but that brings back the issue of continuity plus regroup - you either design them for each option individually, or you end in a situation where the golden ages are less applicable to one setting.

ashen willow
young stone
# ashen willow Think both golden and dark need a bit of love

Yea. One idea I’ve been kicking around that might warrant its own thread is using the crises as a “legacy path” to control the continuity.

So, if crises are disabled, you just keep everything - cities included.

But if they are enabled, it adds a “legacy path” that tracks how well you manage it - with points for beating barbarians, mitigating plagues, etc. Your progress against the crisis would give “legacy points” that would work like advanced start options or @languid dock ‘s crises rework concept.

I think that’s an interesting way to go about it because it gives players who like age transitions a mechanically and narratively satisfying way to explain the “off-ramp”, and players who don’t want to lose anything at all can just turn the crises off.

languid dock
#

Well either way i really hope they give crisis a thorough look and a rework.

lusty valve