Snowballing IS an acceptable outcome

[Lighthope]

Reading the Developer's Diary, I see a lot of focus on Snowballing and it being the main reason they adapted Humankind's playstyle.

Let me say that being left behind is an acceptable penalty for not playing well. I mess up, I either deal with it and find a way out of the hole or I start the game over.

it's okay. I don't need or want a participation trophy.

Let me advance on my own pace, and if I get left behind so be it. I won't cry, I promise. And if I leave my opponents behind, that is my reward for playing well or them playing poorly.

Nothing is stopping my opponents from banding together than helping the one left behind., you know.

tl;dr Everyone advancing ages at the same time is a participation trophy for the weak that I don't want or need.

[SLG]

Where are you reading the developer's diary?

[The Doctor]

Snowballing IS a major issue in long-term games like these though and many folks have complained about it over time. I might not like the approach they've adopted to deal with it here but I certainly don't think snowballing is good in a game. Depending on your game skills and the starting situation, you will soon reach that point when you know you've won but it will take another 10+ hours of not particularly engaging play time to finish and see the Victory screen.

Old World has just 200 turns on default so it's reasonably fast paced. I see this as three 'Old World'-style sessions linked together to make one (hopefully) cohesive whole campaign. It might be better than what we currently have or it might suck. It depends on how the devs manage this and we've yet to see any mid or late game play.

[Lighthope]

Originally posted by Lee:

Where are you reading the developer's diary?

Community hub. Civilization VII Dev Diary #1: Ages

[Oaks]

I'm all for the change, snowballing kills most of my playthroughs. Once I see that I am significantly farther ahead than the AI, I quit and start a new playthrough. It really drains the fun for me.

In the 400 or so hours I've played of Civ6, I've never made it past the industrial age. By that point, there's usually a few civs still sitting around in the medieval era. I just can't go on.

I'm looking forward to this new system because hopefully it means I'll be able to keep interested until the modern era.

[Foe-Hammer]

I disagree, losing is acceptable but when you are losing for 6 hours it's not a fun experience anymore. It's been a constant issue in civ that the bottom player ends up basically sitting the game out or having to leave and it would be nice if there were an alternative. I would suggest something along the lines of becoming a rebel faction where you can influence other player's cities through espionage rather than strength or economy, allowing players to eventually steal cities to rejoin the economy/war sides of the game.

[ParabolaWaVe]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer:

I disagree, losing is acceptable but when you are losing for 6 hours it's not a fun experience anymore. It's been a constant issue in civ that the bottom player ends up basically sitting the game out or having to leave and it would be nice if there were an alternative. I would suggest something along the lines of becoming a rebel faction where you can influence other player's cities through espionage rather than strength or economy, allowing players to eventually steal cities to rejoin the economy/war sides of the game.

I disagree with that. I think "losing" is actually the most interesting development gameplay wise, because it forces you and all the minor civs to respond to the emergence of that great power. Will they associate in order to challenge the most powerful civ? Or will they become a "lackey" of the new great power, in order to guarantee a higher place in the ranking when the game ends?

I think the game would easily solve the "snowball" problem just by giving more importance to the goal of reaching second, third and fourth place, as opposed to no. 1. Improved diplomacy AI wouldn't be bad either... for instance, with a machiavellian AI plotting at the back of the winning player, forcing the latter to play a bit paranoid and suspect friendly civs.

The reset from the "ages" mechanic, I honestly think it is a very bad solution, and takes away possibly the most interesting part of the game. Or at least its potential to be interesting.

[hannibal_pjv]

Snow balling is not wrong, but it is super boring!
So if this era system help in there, it will be great upgrade to Civ games!

I normally end civ game when I start snowballing… because the game becomes super boring when it happens… i did win at middle of the game, why continue?

[oddball]

They mean the player snowballing and leaving the ai behind then quitting the game halfway out of boredom. IDK about anyone else but that describes about 95% of my civ games over the last 30 years.

Giving the ai a helping hand so that the game stays interesting and I finally get to use a bomber in a civ game sounds great and I am all in.

[Ultimate Sadistic Creature]

Originally posted by ParabolaWaVe:

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer:

I disagree, losing is acceptable but when you are losing for 6 hours it's not a fun experience anymore. It's been a constant issue in civ that the bottom player ends up basically sitting the game out or having to leave and it would be nice if there were an alternative. I would suggest something along the lines of becoming a rebel faction where you can influence other player's cities through espionage rather than strength or economy, allowing players to eventually steal cities to rejoin the economy/war sides of the game.

I disagree with that. I think "losing" is actually the most interesting development gameplay wise, because it forces you and all the minor civs to respond to the emergence of that great power. Will they associate in order to challenge the most powerful civ? Or will they become a "lackey" of the new great power, in order to guarantee a higher place in the ranking when the game ends?

I think the game would easily solve the "snowball" problem just by giving more importance to the goal of reaching second, third and fourth place, as opposed to no. 1. Improved diplomacy AI wouldn't be bad either... for instance, with a machiavellian AI plotting at the back of the winning player, forcing the latter to play a bit paranoid and suspect friendly civs.

The reset from the "ages" mechanic, I honestly think it is a very bad solution, and takes away possibly the most interesting part of the game. Or at least its potential to be interesting.

It also means you no longer have any reason to play well, as it does not matter at all. I can't help but guess The Spiffing Brit will find countless ways to exploit the ever loving hell out of this game.

[rodrigo]

Civ6 style snowballing is really poor game design. Having to plan for your aqueducts/industrial zones/late game wonders first 20-30 turns and then trying to flawlessly execute it... Is not only boring but also very repetitive IMO.

Also - historically, it's nonsense. What happened in ancient times / medieval era do not dictate the success of a nation...

[Cass]

Originally posted by rodrigo:

Civ6 style snowballing is really poor game design. Having to plan for your aqueducts/industrial zones/late game wonders first 20-30 turns and then trying to flawlessly execute it... Is not only boring but also very repetitive IMO.

Also - historically, it's nonsense. What happened in ancient times / medieval era do not dictate the success of a nation...

Yeah.

My perfectionist streak really clashes with the district/wonder placement. The moment something goes slightly wrong with my plan, I'm tempted to start over.

Granted that's partially my own fault, but if Civ 7 manages to make rigid long-term planning less important I'll be glad for it.