Hypothetical: More Than 8 Civs in Expack 3?

[The Kingmaker]

Well we've seen a fair amount of reasoning along those lines, and the problem is that they tend to be fairly nonspecfic and presume more or less design overlap than the civs themselves entail.

Case in point, you have automatically presumed from your organization that we only need one North American civ, despite the fact that these poll results show players likely want two because of how culturally diverse that region is.

I also noted that players are divided on two or three African civs, and the Northern/SS divide wouldn't afford them the latter option.
You have also completely ignored the Alpine and Scandinavian regions that many players want. While I personally don't care much about either region, a poll without those options would be fundamentally excluding certain ideas.

Furthermore, by more specifically identifying TSL spots, it allows for the weighing and observation of multiple factors that are typically left out of these over generalized continental arguments. The Sami are equally Scandinavian as they are a far north civ, and much more different from Siberia or the Inuit than they are from Finland. Presuming only one Arctic civ ignores other factors that go into what players want, whereas deliberating grouping similar cultures by TSL allows for, say, an Arctic inference to be drawn rather than decided for the pollsters.

This was simply a different take on the idea than the reductive "one SA, one NA one Asian, one SS African, etc. etc." that tends to reinforce a rather limited scope of ambition rather than elucidate anything new.

You’re already reading too much into my suggestion.

For example, I want at least 2, preferably 3 North American tribes, as well as at least 2 more African civs.

I’m just suggesting a basic survey of which areas Civvers feel attention is needed generally.

I’d limit them to say, five or six votes. Make them choose what they want the absolute most.

For example, if everyone votes for the Arctic, you’ll know that region needs a more detailed breakdown with lots of suggestions. But if no one prioritizes it in their top five/six, it might mean it just isn’t a priority to them now.

Once you have that data, you’ll know which areas are popular enough to afford a much more detailed TSL breakdown.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

You’re already reading too much into my suggestion.

For example, I want at least 2, preferably 3 North American tribes, as well as at least 2 more African civs.

I’m just suggesting a basic survey of which areas Civvers feel attention is needed generally.

I’d limit them to say, five or six votes. Make them choose what they want the absolute most.

For example, if everyone votes for the Arctic, you’ll know that region needs a more detailed breakdown with lots of suggestions. But if no one prioritizes it in their top five/six, it might mean it just isn’t a priority to them now.

Once you have that data, you’ll know which areas are popular enough to afford a much more detailed TSL breakdown.

I'm not sure how useful data only collecting on regions from, say, a single continent, would be. You would have members artificially introducing their own biases based on considerations expressly omitted from the system (I don't want the Inuit as my second NA civ, because I assume the Saami are happening). You would also be encouraging voters to ignore a larger picture that they otherwise would have considered (I can and will vote for three NA civs in a vacuum, even though in practice I would only ever expect one or two).

 

[The Kingmaker]

Those were only hypothetical geographical breakdowns.

If 100% voted for North America, we’ll know that most everyone supports expanding that region, especially if the other options are ignored.

I didn’t break up the Americas further because we’ll be very lucky if we get three more civs in the Americas, and didn’t want to unduly dilute the votes. Irrespective of which tribe(s) one supports, everyone in that debate supports having more American civs. Whether someone wants a PNW, SW or SE tribe is irrelevant if we don’t get any new American civs at all.

Once a mandate for more NA civs is proven, the debate over tribes can take on added weight. The argument over tribes is more meaningful if 5,000 people want those civs than if only 5 do.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Those were only hypothetical geographical breakdowns.

If 100% voted for North America, we’ll know that most everyone supports expanding that region, especially if the other options are ignored.

I didn’t break up the Americas further because we’ll be very lucky if we get three more civs in the Americas, and didn’t want to unduly dilute the votes. Irrespective of which tribe(s) one supports, everyone in that debate supports having more American civs. Whether someone wants a PNW, SW or SE tribe is irrelevant if we don’t get any new American civs at all.

Once a mandate for more NA civs is proven, the debate over tribes can take on added weight. The argument over tribes is more meaningful if 5,000 people want those civs than if only 5 do.

I think on these boards it generally has been proven that North America and Africa are areas of wide interest that many community members want more than one or two civs.

So all that sort of grouping achieves is masking interest by a self-fulfilling presumption that, say, one NA civ is enough. If Firaxis or a 2K officer stumbled on data like that, they wouldn't say "wow, that is a very popular area, we should add more than one civ." They would instead say, in order:

1. "That is a very popular area, we should add a civ there."

2. "What do you mean a second civ? We checked the box and there are still three European slots on the players' wishlist that need filling. If they wanted a second NA civ, we would be seeing more variegated campaigns for that part of the world."

I may take a hardline developer-centric position in debate on here, but polls are first and foremost a matter of public opinion. By lumping large regions together in any poll, while still simultaneously leaving presumptive space for European or Middle Eastern civs, it gives the misimpression that our public opinion aligns with what we think Firaxis will do, rather than representing what we actually want.

So I try to avoid polls which expressly presume geographic exclusivity on the level of continents because it achieves nothing. We already know Firaxis calculatedly releases about one civ per continent outside of Europe. So we don't learn anything new about the market demand, really, except how many members placidly buy into taking whatever they get. What I wanted to know by this poll was, if players weren't so artificially limited:

A. Which continents would they favor, and to what extent? Africa, for instance, gets a lot more attention than the devs would probably have prioritized, and now we have data showing them that maybe they should consider adding more civs there. Whereas it seems that Colombia is the only place in Latin America commanding any attention outside of the Maya, despite all the chatter surrounding Argentina and the Caribbean.

B. What unfilled part of Europe do players care most about? This, I admit, was a mostly failed experiment, in part I believe because aside from the south Slavic and Ukrainian region we already have "place-holders" everywhere. So instead of finding out if members prefer the idea of another British civ, another Scandinavian civ, another German or West Slavic civ, instead they just went with the most popular "extra" Iberian and Italic equivalents. So this didn't really reveal any new information, just that Portugal and Italy are presumed as near-mandatory.

One valuable thing we can infer, however, is that if Firaxis ever saw a poll with this spread, it would tell them that Europe could be considered "done" after Portugal and Italy, and nothing they do beyond that substantially affects sales. If given the choice of weighing filler European options against the rest of the world, players tend to on average prefer other parts of the map be filled. Absent a second European poll deliberately removing the option of Portugal and Italy, none of these regions appear more marketable than any other. (This "group bias skew" was also partly why I removed Byzantium and Akkadia just to try to uncover more interesting data; in retrospect Portugal should have probably been removed as a freebie as well just to give Europe a fighting chance. But hindsight is 20/20)

 

[The Kingmaker]

Well, I was just suggesting that as a precursor to more detailed surveys and analyses.

I think your current study may be overly presumptive about certain assumptions about what is wanted or needed. I just thought some additional foundational data could be helpful.

I think for example, if you’re wanting to analyze what is wanted most that has yet to ever be filled, you should perhaps have made all the big names “freebies,” even the likes of the Maya and Ethiopia. We know those are going to get votes—Civ fans want their favorite toys back.

That way your data doesn’t skew in favor of big-name recurring favorites.

I might then have listed the main TSL gaps as potential poll options, e.g. Caribbean, Southwest U.S., East African Coast, etc. that way voters supporting an area aren’t limited to the suggestions in your poll. Assuming of course, that you’re wanting to show which areas people are more interested in.

What you’re showing right now is that people like certain clumps of civs better than others, without knowing exactly why.

But whatever. You don’t have to like my suggestions or use my ideas. It’s a big forum.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Well, I was just suggesting that as a precursor to more detailed surveys and analyses.

I think your current study may be overly presumptive about certain assumptions about what is wanted or needed. I just thought some additional foundational data could be helpful.

I think for example, if you’re wanting to analyze what is wanted most that has yet to ever be filled, you should perhaps have made all the big names “freebies,” even the likes of the Maya and Ethiopia. We know those are going to get votes—Civ fans want their favorite toys back.

The Maya I was uncertain about but I kept in because I see a surprising amount of dissent or disinsterest to their inclusion, and usually this stems from being "too close to the Aztecs" or "a second Mexico civ." I was also curious to see how it would affect a Caribbean civ (and by the looks of things, quite a bit). Specifically because the Aztec argument is pseudo-geographic, I decided to leave the Maya in. Surprisingly so far this seemed to have not had nearly the impact time thought it would.

I do not regret keeping Ethiopia in, however, because it represents two curious zones of competition. The first is that we already have the thoroughly superfluous Nubia, and so voters have to weigh how much they want Ethiopia over a third Nile/Red Sea civ. The second is that as far as new African civs go, Ethiopia often the presumed frontrunner, but it is not the only veteran, and I was curious to see how the Maghreb sized up against it. Apparently members care equally about both regions, which is different than other votes pitting Ethiopia against Morocco might have viewers believe.

I might then have listed the main TSL gaps as potential poll options, e.g. Caribbean, Southwest U.S., East African Coast, etc. that way voters supporting an area aren’t limited to the suggestions in your poll. Assuming of course, that you’re wanting to show which areas people are more interested in.

I believe the rules and the disclaimers state that this is by TSL region. Regardless, merely naming regions would have been rather difficult in some areas. Even though Oman is clearly a "Swahili Coast" civ that is mutually competitive with Swahili and Somali, I would have had to expressly name it as part of that group. The most difficult to describe region was Southeast Asia. Had I just described "Burma area," I could have meant anything, but the internal competition for the "Buddhist" slot between Tibet, Nepal, and Burma is much stronger and coherent than the "in between space" occupied by Siam and Malaysia. The divide is still geographic, but not what players would intuit without expressly noting civ examples.

What you’re showing right now is that people like certain clumps of civs better than others, without knowing exactly why.

What I am showing is the areas of the map that player interest tends to lie. The players have already filled in the gaps themselves and generally tend to think in terms of equivalents.

Some members want Bohemia. Some want Austria. Both groups tend to not want each other or Switzerland, but they all definitely would rather spend their slot on the Alps than, say, the Balkans which still have sketchy representation through Macedon.

That is a choice of priority and an indicator of where player interest is, especially since the Alps and Balkans are somewhat of "traps" for voters who don't care about TSL filling at all, and so would be good bellwethers to indicate whether the devs should even be so concerned with TSL. Why should the devs represent all of the South Slavic states with Bulgaria when players--for whatever reason--are fixated on tiny little Bohemia? These are important questions to balance, and ultimately opinion polls may still not matter. No one knew they would love the Georgian theme or Eleanor's LA until it happened. Sometimes polls can point out where groupthink was always kinda uncreative and lame, too (see: Portugal's polling, despite having all the mechanical potential of a Spain alt leader).

I mean I'm all for constructive feedback, but I just don't see your propositions as all that robust for answering the questions I have. Maybe you just have different questions, but again I don't care about knowing what 4 European civs players want. I want a measurement--however coarse at this point--indicating how much we actually want 4 European civs at all.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Not sure I know what you mean by “4 European players.”

 

[Jkchart]

I have 14 ideas (I can't limit myself very well, so I'll just write them here)

First, the big 5 missing that MUST be present:
-Babylon is the last civ that has been present in every iteration of the game except this one so far. It would be sad to have this fan favorite miss its slot.
-Byzantium, which I would also accept Justinian/Theodora being a Rome alternate leader easily.
-Ethiopia, deserving inclusion that finally hit the roster in 4/5 and I could see it being an Inca/Russia hybrid with regard to faith and mountainous terrain.
-Maya, deserving inclusion that would fill that Central America gap nicely and has been in the last three games.
-Portugal, deserving inclusion that is even more egregiously not in the game because its colony (Brazil) is present.

Now, onto the other 9, ones I personally would pick between if given the opportunity to design them:
-Boers, a compromise "South Africa" civ that could focus on their farming/famed resistance to British rule like the Zulu. One of the few post-colonial civs that I actually think would be really cool to put in the game. (Also, gives us a Dutch colonial civ, since we have 3 English, 1 Portuguese, technically Canada is both England and France).
-Burma, an entirely new region of the map never before explored in a Civ game with fascinating history that nicely meets the diversity requirement.
-Gaul, de-blobbed Celts, which I think would be uber cool and one of the few more European civs that we could get (don't really need more Europeans).
-Hittites, would love to see them return to the game as they are considered to be one of the first empires, and in a game about empires, Hatti is perfect
-Iroquois, been in 3+5, nostalgia factor for me based on playing Civ III so much growing up, worthy inclusion IMO and meets the Native American tribe requirement
-Mexico, I KNOW people want Colombia, but I would prefer Mexico since a) was an Empire, b) oldest Latin American independent nation, c) so much cultural history to draw from, d) huge potential for city lists, e) I don't want people to just say "Well Mexico has the Aztecs..."
-Morocco, was a favorite from V, and I think many of us would be happy to see them return, and to have a north African civ (since Carthage was widened to the whole of Phoenicia)
-Oman, a Civ that I'm pretty sure that I advocated for in a post on the forums. Unique in that it was a Muslim colonial Empire with colonies in India and Africa and a maritime power; also religiously unique from the rest of Arabia due to being the stronghold of Ibadi Islam, and was governmentally unique (was "Muscat and Oman", where Muscat was ruled differently from the interior, which was headed by the Imamate instead of the sultan, at Nizwa). Really fascinating history and a lot of potential to be distinct from Arabia (or could be an Arab alternate leader so we actually have an Arab leader in Arabia...)
-Venice, the only way I personally would want renaissance Italy in the game (although if we get it, I will play Italy and not complain). I'm sorry, but I don't care for adding a full on Italy civ. But I LOVED Venice in Civ V, and it was the epitome of playing Civ totally differently. I'd be happy to see them return.

Also as a sidenote: I'd love to see alt leaders for Egypt (Hatshepsut, maybe Ramesses), China (go different and use Sun Yat-Sen, who is a modern Chinese statesman respected highly by both the KMT and Communists, both of whom consider him the founder of modern China), Arabia (Harun al-Rashid with his capital at Baghdad, Muawiyah I at Damascus, or even Uthman at Medina; even cooler, Queen Mavia of the Tanukhids), Russia (Lenin, Rurik), Germany (Bismarck).

 

[awesome]

One dea that I've had for civ7 is for the normal 18 civs in the base game, but with a double pack for the pre-order bonus, then 10 DLC civs between single and double packs, then 10 for each of the 3 expansions, bringing the total to 60.
That's probably off-topic, though, so I'll just say that I agree that filling space isn't the only reason for a geographic spread as it is probably equal in importance to getting bique cultures in the game. Obviously, Spanish and Portuguese culture isn't the same (to use an example from another thread), but we need to base the civs on what makes them different from each other.
For another example, England and several of its former colonies are in the game and work as separate, unique, civs, but Carthage and Phonicia probably wouldn't also work as separate civs, even though they're also in different spots on the map.