Patch notes for 'Fall 2016' update have been released

[Bobchillingworth]

I think this is a permanent irrevocable shift in the online community, that attention spans are fragmented so much between phones and microgames and facebook and all. I think we'll never recapture that depth of interest in fully exploring variants for any extended duration

I think the issue was less that mobile-addled community members couldn't handle the mental strain of committing to completing a full game of Civ IV, and more that, after a decade of exposure, no variant could make the singleplayer experience refreshing. There are still plenty of people willing to invest dozens of hours in epic Civ IV contests against human opponents.

[LKendter]

I think this is a permanent irrevocable shift in the online community, that attention spans are fragmented so much between phones and microgames and facebook and all.  I think we'll never recapture that depth of interest in fully exploring variants for any extended duration.

This is so true.  When I was the nut who ran 100+ SG (Civ3 / 4), it was pretty much my sole focus for gaming.

Now I play 4 different online games that I want to hit for at least a few minutes every day.
Back then I had almost no TV I watched, and now 5+ hours a week is the norm.

I simply don't have as much time to dedicate to Civ6.
I am one of the few still doing Civ3 SG monster games.  I got one going right now.
Seeing the community active again has me wanting to go back and finally finish some half-baked Civ4 adventures / epics.  I've found 2 of the saves, notes and pictures so far
At least one is lost.  

[Commodore]

We also probably just need to give it time.  While we had a lot of action on the release, I would suppose there is a large chunk of the community very much in wait and see mode with the game and while I agree that Civ6 is quite playable, its also has some big flaws, so if someone were to say they're waiting until a bigger patch or an expansion where diplomacy is made more meaningful/immersive and the AI shows they can still do real damage in a 1UPT environment other than at the beginning of the game with huge bonuses, I wouldn't necessarily say they were taking an incorrect tack.

This, more than anything else. Particularly in the era of DLC and release-then-patch-to-full, I'd never buy a new game right at release. Civ6 is going to evolve into itself, I find myself liking the zygote but it's yet to show what it'll be in the end.

Also MP support is a must for me for longevity if nothing else.

[Ruined Everything]

What killed the Civ 4 adventures was a lack of interest... in finishing a damn game. Over time, the proportion rose drastically of people who would start an adventure/epic and get bored and drop out in the medieval era. This took a toll on me as the chief sponsor (while Sullla was off doing League of Legends instead), that I couldn't design events around a full proper game of Civ, but had to scale down the scope and frontload the relevant factors in hopes of beating the dropouts. I ran out of ideas not for Civ itself, but for the microgame condensed version of Civ that the audience wanted.

I think this is a permanent irrevocable shift in the online community, that attention spans are fragmented so much between phones and microgames and facebook and all.  I think we'll never recapture that depth of interest in fully exploring variants for any extended duration.  Sullla will do it and we'll read along but only so many will participate beyond say next summer.

First, the standard proviso - I'm obviously a newcomer to this online community which evidently has a venerable history. I don't claim any understanding of the community's dynamics or to speak to the community's experience in any way.

That being said, hopefully it isn't too forwards of me to offer a viewpoint based on my personal experience with civ.

I find Civ fun because puzzle solving. I find variants fun because they change civ's dynamics, creating space to discover new solutions. The joy of civ is that it makes you think.

Certainly in civ 4, however, there often came a time when you no longer had to think. Typically this happened around the point that you caught up to the AI - unlike early civ 5 (and, I believe, civ 3) there was never a risk of getting dogpiled (I *liked* the dogpile mechanic from civ 3/early civ 5) which meant that the moment you took the lead from the AI, the AI rarely got it back. After that the game became a matter of mechanical execution. You could distract yourself up to a point playing around in your sandbox - building a really big city, finishing as quickly as possible - but the game of *civ* was over for all intents and purposes.

I don't think that struggling to finish an already won game of civ is an 'attention span' thing. I think that its a very reasonable human response to want to optimize one's limited free time. I get home from work at 9:00pm. If I'm lucky that means I get 2-3 hours of 'game time' a night. Why would I spend those precious hours mechanically taking Monty's cities with cannon/rifle spam to hit domination when I'm already 4 techs over the leading AI? Why not crank up the difficulty, start a new game, and actually get to think?

May I humbly suggest variants that 'release players' when they've solved the variant's challenge? Rather than 'fastest conquest', perhaps 'fastest conquest or fastest to wipe out 50% of the AI and own an army twice the size of the next leading AI.' Maybe consider 'soft' win conditions. 'Be an era in tech above the leading AI' or 'produce as many beakers/turn / culture/turn as the rest of the AI combined past T150' are probably acceptable certificates of an eventual victory without forcing the player to play through a series of comparably empty turns.

Heck, something like 'you win if you're 4 techs ahead of the leading AI on immortal by T150. Otherwise you lose. Winners ranked by # techs researched. Renaissance start.' keeps the game tense and down to the wire 'til it's last seconds.

I have no idea if that spoke to anything remotely to do with T-Hawk's problem. I wasn't there. I have no idea if that suggestion is even desirable (it certainly might be game able), or if it runs against RB's ethos.

I guess I'm just making the obvious point that crafting games that end shortly after their challenge does is a good way to keep interest going to the end of the game. I think we all prefer Master of Orion's end game clean up to civ's.

[T-hawk]

May I humbly suggest variants that 'release players' when they've solved the variant's challenge?

This is exactly what I did for the last couple years worth of occasional Civ 4 events. I had events with alternate win thresholds, scoring that would end in the medieval era and wouldn't require completing the game, small maps with few AIs. This approach worked to a fair extent. But I resented having to bastardize what should be the grand scope of Civilization into such condensed and frontloaded fragments. I couldn't do some variant approach to a space race or cultural victory or modern war because nobody would play that far.

I don't see what in Civ 6 will be any different there after a few months and patches. Civ 5 actually does this pretty well with the policy trees, that naturally bake alternate approaches into the game and I'm actually still experimenting there.

I'm using attention-span as a shorthand for any reasons that might cause someone not to finish out a game. Perhaps a bit unfairly. But ultimately, the causes don't really matter if the effect of an unfinished game is the same.

[Ruined Everything]

May I humbly suggest variants that 'release players' when they've solved the variant's challenge?

This is exactly what I did for the last couple years worth of occasional Civ 4 events.  I had events with alternate win thresholds, scoring that would end in the medieval era and wouldn't require completing the game, small maps with few AIs.  This approach worked to a fair extent.  But I resented having to bastardize what should be the grand scope of Civilization into such condensed and frontloaded fragments.  I couldn't do some variant approach to a space race or cultural victory or modern war because nobody would play that far.

I don't see what in Civ 6 will be any different there after a few months and patches.  Civ 5 actually does this pretty well with the policy trees, that naturally bake alternate approaches into the game and I'm actually still experimenting there.

I'm using attention-span as a shorthand for any reasons that might cause someone not to finish out a game.  Perhaps a bit unfairly.  But ultimately, the causes don't really matter if the effect of an unfinished game is the same.

I better understand the problem now. Thank you for explaining.

My gut reaction (which I'm sure you've explored thoroughly) is that an ideal variant sounds like one which preserves it's challenge deep into the heart of the late game. Perhaps through restricting the player's ability to cripple the AI (immortal AI on another continent, can't invade until the modern era.) Or by making the game difficult enough that it *can't* be won in the medieval period (Sullla's United We Stand game - my favorite write up of all time - stands out to me as a classic example of where the scenario led to rich modern era warfare.)

Again, I'm sure you've explored these approaches in depth (they are rather obvious.) Out of curiosity, why didn't they work?

[T-hawk]

Or by making the game difficult enough that it *can't* be won in the medieval period

The problem here is disparities in player skill.  If a scenario is difficult enough (either by variant rule or the actual in-game level) that Sullla or I can't effectively win in the medieval period and have to go to modern war... then it's difficult enough that the bulk of players won't win at all.

We try this sort of extreme difficulty game on occasion anyway, with a "no shame in losing" attitude.  It works approximately once per title or expansion or major gameplay patch.  But folks that go through one losing slog typically aren't interested in another for a long time.  High difficulty is one tool in the box but is not sustainable in itself.

[Cheater Hater]

The other problem is that you need to make it as easy for players to play the game how they want to play it as possible--and that means relaxing the mods and spoilers rules. Obviously there are still limits (mods that actually change gameplay are clearly off-limits, and reading spoilers is still an honor violation), but excluding someone who wants a clearer interface (read: doesn't want to spend extra time calculating things, or doesn't know enough to know how to calculate arcane things) or wants to do something with their 10+ hour experience other than sit on it for a month (by streaming it, or getting feedback on in-progress reports) diminishes the audience (and as a consequence the community itself, especially after getting ~40 reports for Adventure One).

[Ruined Everything]

The other problem is that you need to make it as easy for players to play the game how they want to play it as possible--and that means relaxing the mods and spoilers rules.  Obviously there are still limits (mods that actually change gameplay are clearly off-limits, and reading spoilers is still an honor violation), but excluding someone who wants a clearer interface (read: doesn't want to spend extra time calculating things, or doesn't know enough to know how to calculate arcane things) or wants to do something with their 10+ hour experience other than sit on it for a month (by streaming it, or getting feedback on in-progress reports) diminishes the audience (and as a consequence the community itself, especially after getting ~40 reports for Adventure One).

Again, I'm a new comer to this forum and I'm aware that it's a terrible breach of netiquette to show up to a community and immediately start picking apart its rules/denigrating its experiences. That being said, since its been brought up by someone that isn't me, for the little it's worth I entirely agree.

Interface modification is tricky. Obviously if there are things which are hidden *and* incalculable to a player using the standard interface (e.g. before the new patch, showing which tile a city is going to grab with culture next) an interface which shows them is clearly an unfair advantage. Nonetheless, there are certain instances when all a mod is going to do is save you legwork. In my Adventure 2 game, for example, I have a spreadsheet that tracks my cities' current stored food/culture because the interface won't do it for me. I need this spreadsheet to manage my cities correctly. I will never not have this spreadsheet. I have spent significant time keeping this spreadsheet correct. This time is better spent thinking about the actual game. It's not clear to me that an interface mod to give me numbers is doing anything other than saving me time.

I also agree that finding some mechanism for more interaction around reporting would be wonderful. SG 1 has materially improved my civ game, because I can suggest moves and get feedback from the likes of Ichabod essentially in real time. In contrast, I didn't receive feedback on my Adv 1 report. This is quite understandable - there were 40 reports, and I'm a terrible writer - but the vacuum does mean that I'm not much of a better civ player for it. I would happily sacrifice a shot at scoring to be able to ask the odd question to more experienced community members.

Conversely, not being able to pick the brains of members until the reports have concluded diminishes my ability to understand what other people are doing. I remember spending a good 30 minutes staring at Picklepikki's Adv 1 screenshots trying to work how out on earth he'd built up such a strong economy. I finished the actual play time of Adv 1 quite quickly - I would have loved to follow him/her/them along and ask questions. I don't know how you'd do this and avoid spoilers - maybe it's impossible. But I would personally appreciate more interaction around the adventures if possible.

I hope this post isn't inflammatory. I have greatly enjoyed both Adventures (thus far), and I'm loving SG 1. I'm quite alright with nothing changing - the 3 RB events I've participated in have been a blast. Since the topic came up, I thought I'd add my 2 cents.

...I should probably get back to work now.

[Gaspar]

The thing with mods and interaction are two separate issues. I'm not entirely well-placed to answer these concerns because while I have been around a long time, I mostly lurked during the SP heyday, starting a dozen or more adventures/epics and never finishing any. Actually, I think that Civ6 Adventure 1 is the only one of our events I actually completed and reported.

That said, I think the mod thing is just one of those things that makes RB RB. We had a lot of calls for BUG to be approved for single player events for Civ4 but the determination was always that it did a bit too much for you. There's a purity of man vs game that is an unspoken part of the RB ethos. Now, the base Civ4 AI was leaps and bounds better for high level play than Civ6 is in its current incarnation, but there certainly were a lot of things that the interface didn't tell you. Something straightforward that simply told you things about city growth and stored food in our rudimentary early modding universe probably isn't that big of a deal, though you do get into questions of how much does this disadvantage players who have a strict no mods philosophy. But once the modding tools are released and someone inevitably releases an UI mod which is much more complete, then you get into slippery slope arguments.

Anyway, the mod thing isn't that big a deal in a vacuum but it is sort of "not RB" to use any external tools. I don't know what if any percentage of the community that turns off, but I can't imagine at this stage its a large slice.

Regarding the interaction, this is really what the succession gaming (cheap plug: check out the game I proposed in the SG thread - we still need 1-2 more players!) is for. The events are designed to be more personal challenges, which you get the pay off at the end of reading everyone else's reports and see where you went right/wrong, etc., while also providing a competition. As soon as you introduce spoiler threads, there is no competition. This isn't because you can't trust people to not read them specifically, though that element exists. Its more because if I'm reporting and people are giving me feedback, while T-hawk plays alone, then it isn't an even competition. While I wouldn't say the competition between players is the biggest concern in the Adventures, it is an element of what makes our SP events attractive.