Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Askia Muhammad]

I think they know that being able to put out a product where people could do a head to head match in a reasonable timeframe was a priority. I think that's partly why you have the age breaks, you can run a single age session in only a few hours. And that's fine, as long as it still works for those people who don't mind spending a bit more time.

I do think that does break you out a touch from the classic civ game, just because you feel too pressured to follow the paths. Like, I'm not building a wonder because I necessarily think it will win for me, it's to get those victory points. I'll settle a random island city to get that tea resource.

I do think in time, they will come around and find the balance. Swapping around the resources to make sure distant lands resources have a purpose to themselves, that will help. Better growth balance too. I'm sure they'll make some tweaks to specialist yields, tech times, etc... to change things up enough. Especially once they make some deeper changes in an expansion, that will all help.

But the fact that the game comes in quite expensive, and that just a lot of stuff came in with sub-par finish, I think makes everyone also look a little more critically at all the other features too. It would have been really nice if the last couple patches could have been balancing costs and tweaking other bits, rather than having to focus too much on getting those basic UI updates in. We'd be talking about the first challenge, etc...

I think they can tweak all they want and adjust on the edges - I don’t think those things will be enough to salvage the game.

We genuinely need something impactful to not only stem the tide of player loss but also encourage people to come back and give it another try.

I think if they are still in the headspace that all that’s needed are some numbers tuning and a few UI enhancements, they will continue to have a very niche audience that’s willing to hear them

 

[Smegger213]

I'm guessing Civ 5 was the first version you played?

I was not saying that Civ 5 is better or worse than Civ 6 or 7. I have like 1000 hours in Civ 5, and very much enjoyed it. My point was that if they had just kept remaking the same game with better graphics, and no changes since the start, you would have never gotten Civ 5 (or it would not have been the game it was). Civilization 1 is a very different game than Civ 5...

Nope, I have played them all right from the first one. But, of the versions that are available today on Steam. Civ 5 is the one I have played the most.

 

[AD1730]

I think they can tweak all they want and adjust on the edges - I don’t think those things will be enough to salvage the game.

We genuinely need something impactful to not only stem the tide of player loss but also encourage people to come back and give it another try.

I think if they are still in the headspace that all that’s needed are some numbers tuning and a few UI enhancements, they will continue to have a very niche audience that’s willing to hear them

I'm not a big fan of Martin Anward (aka "Wiz). I don't particularly like how he talks down to fans of their games. But, Firaxis needs to do what he did with Stellaris, which was admit that some central features really weren't working and go back to the drawing board.

 

[Smegger213]

I was more saying that half the leaders were not political leaders in that sense of the word.
You know, the ones that were not presidents or prime ministers etc.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said DEI hires.
But it grates me that we get leaders like Ada Lovelace for Britain, instead of someone like Churchill or one of the many kings and queens Britain has had.
I want to know why such leaders like Lovelace and Tubman etc were put into the game instead of some of the proper kings, queens, presidents or prime ministers?

 

[VGT]

I think they know that being able to put out a product where people could do a head to head match in a reasonable timeframe was a priority.

And this was a rather stupid thing to prioritize and shows that they don't understand the audience they have. Not many people play multiplayer matches in Civ. If they do, they're often between friends and have no problem if it's an on and off thing that occurs over weeks.

Agree. And if indeed they wanted so bad to make it multiplayer friendly and maybe competetive, it's so simple to just have normal civ game and then carve out small part of it with specific goal for multiplayer condensed session:
- first to specific technology
- first to have X resources
- first to have Y wonders
- most X after Y turns
etc. Possibilities would be almost endless.

 

[Kev1916]

That's exactly right - which is why the game feels like its on rails all the time. They have discouraged role-playing or immersion in the game in favor of minmaxing, on-rails deckbuilding. This is modern mobile game development with a Civ wrapper. And I think its also why they changed their catch-phrase from 'build an empire to stand the test of time,' to 'build something you believe in.'

Or perhaps "to Buy something you believe in "

How many Civs with "Leaders" could they pump out pre Civ 7 ?

This version well ... almost infinite numbers of famous persons in the history of mankind and literally thousand's of tribe's, historic ethnic groups

 

[Pistol90]

Thats another problem with gaming industry in general today.

Not allowing discusion. If someone says dont do DEI leader poll he is usually being targeted by devs and those who make decisions.

But all that does is chosing boring leaders and civs.

There are enough interesting historical people which are well known and diverse without need to push it down our throat.

All Civs before 7 had those leaders.

And one thing is having someone very close to being leader in game (B.Franklin), than having some scientist and philosopher who were never having anything being nation leaders.

 

[Kev1916]

I was more saying that half the leaders were not political leaders in that sense of the word.
You know, the ones that were not presidents or prime ministers etc.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said DEI hires.
But it grates me that we get leaders like Ada Lovelace for Britain, instead of someone like Churchill or one of the many kings and queens Britain has had.
I want to know why such leaders like Lovelace and Tubman etc were put into the game instead of some of the proper kings, queens, presidents or prime ministers?

But why ?

Far for me to stick up for Civ 7 , but having leaders like Ada Lovelace ( ( defo instead of Churchill ) what next get uncle Joe back ) was one of the few things I thought were a great idea

 

[Smegger213]

But why ?

Far for me to stick up for Civ 7 , but having leaders like Ada Lovelace ( ( defo instead of Churchill ) what next get uncle Joe back ) was one of the few things I thought were a great idea

I would prefer to have leaders that were actual leaders politically.
Like I said, Kings, Queens, Presidents, Prime Ministers etc.
I haven't actually done a count up. But, how many leaders are in Civ 7, that were not political leaders in real life?

 

[tman2000]

Agree. And if indeed they wanted so bad to make it multiplayer friendly and maybe competetive, it's so simple to just have normal civ game and then carve out small part of it with specific goal for multiplayer condensed session:
- first to specific technology
- first to have X resources
- first to have Y wonders
- most X after Y turns
etc. Possibilities would be almost endless.

I've argued this. They need to completely change the game for the first expansion. Basically design it for larger maps and faster growth and kind of throw balance to the wind a bit.

To compensate for multiplayer, make an even tighter version of what they have now. I'd move the commander upgrades to the attribute tree as universals and also streamline them. Wonders now mainly give you attribute tree progress, in addition to yield purchasable upgrades. Simplify espionage further to either inhibit happiness (via war weariness) or steal upgrades. Get rid of food buildings other than warehouses. Simplify buildings into tier 1,2 happiness,gold,hammers,science,culture,influence. Civ unique buildings now represent blended yields that conform to that civ's theme, in addition to providing other adjacencies.

Get rid of the god-awful pointless town concept.

That kind of thing on a small/fast map for multiplayer. Of course, you should still be able to play a conventional campaign with friends, but it won't be seen as strictly competitive.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Get rid of the god-awful pointless town concept.

This is one of the best things they did!! It was a really elegant solution to the Tall/Wide debate.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

This is one of the best things they did!! It was a really elegant solution to the Tall/Wide debate.

I still don’t understand how this work or when to upgrade to a city.

 

[Leucarum]

This is one of the best things they did!! It was a really elegant solution to the Tall/Wide debate.

I think one of the tragedies of Civ7 is that the incremental stuff - Commanders, Towns/cities, no workers, hyper-detailed civs, civ-specific civics, leader/civ mixing - is all amazing. Just hands-down brilliant.

It's the experimental stuff - ages, legacy paths, civ switching - which is proving the most divisive (well maybe leader/civ mixing is a bit divisive too).

If they don't make a "classic" mode I am sure that modders will do once able, and given that it is increasingly looking like those of us who like the OG Civ7 are in the minority, I wouldn't be surprised if this would be what could turn Civ7 around, and that the devs will be forced into acknowledging it eventually...

 

[queenpea]

I think one of the tragedies of Civ7 is that the incremental stuff - Commanders, Towns/cities, no workers, hyper-detailed civs, civ-specific civics, leader/civ mixing - is all amazing. Just hands-down brilliant.

It's the experimental stuff - ages, legacy paths, civ switching - which is proving the most divisive (well maybe leader/civ mixing is a bit divisive too).

I like the town concept more than I do in practice. I think there is room for improvement. First, they need to balance towns vs. cities (I understand they are working on this already). They need to explain towns better, too. The UI needs to spell out the benefits/drawbacks of specialization better.

I wish, as well, that there was a way to upgrade towns to cities without the use of gold. Everything just costs gold in this game. How about towns could store up food for X turns to turn into cities? What if high population towns cost less to upgrade than small towns? This would make some logical sense and could add dynamism to the game.

 

[trev1972]

I think one of the tragedies of Civ7 is that the incremental stuff - Commanders, Towns/cities, no workers, hyper-detailed civs, civ-specific civics, leader/civ mixing - is all amazing. Just hands-down brilliant.

It's the experimental stuff - ages, legacy paths, civ switching - which is proving the most divisive (well maybe leader/civ mixing is a bit divisive too).

If they don't make a "classic" mode I am sure that modders will do once able, and given that it is increasingly looking like those of us who like the OG Civ7 are in the minority, I wouldn't be surprised if this would be what could turn Civ7 around, and that the devs will be forced into acknowledging it eventually...

I love the idea of commanders and navigable rivers.
I dont see how they can 'un-do' ages and civ switching in a classic mode when it is a core part of the game?

Its not just civ switching for me, i am not a fan of rubber banding, i want to see muskets against tanks, i want going all out on science to be a valid option.
I want the option to play gigantic maps, or the option to have maps that are endless small islands, or the option to play on one gigantic pangea, or the option to play a world map with the current days civs on them.

So many design decisions were clearly made with good intentions, but in my opinion had the consequence of limiting the freedom in the way you play.

 

[tman2000]

This is one of the best things they did!! It was a really elegant solution to the Tall/Wide debate.

I don’t find that it works outside of being a forced concept. You could still play Civ VII’s lame version of tall if everything was a city and food buildings actually mattered. I can go and mod both those features right now.

 

[luca 83]

I was more saying that half the leaders were not political leaders in that sense of the word.
You know, the ones that were not presidents or prime ministers etc.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said DEI hires.
But it grates me that we get leaders like Ada Lovelace for Britain, instead of someone like Churchill or one of the many kings and queens Britain has had.
I want to know why such leaders like Lovelace and Tubman etc were put into the game instead of some of the proper kings, queens, presidents or prime ministers?

It is not a matter of non-political leaders or not but of political events or not: the Tubmann can be a good odra if as events happened or occurred the slave trade, the colonial economy, an African-American population, or mixed in majority in a territory, historical and political events that brought a Tubmann to power, it would not be nice to have the Haitian leader because

 

[Krikkit1]

What if high population towns cost less to upgrade than small towns? This would make some logical sense and could add dynamism to the game.

They already do (bad UI)

 

[tman2000]

I like the town concept more than I do in practice. I think there is room for improvement. First, they need to balance towns vs. cities (I understand they are working on this already). They need to explain towns better, too. The UI needs to spell out the benefits/drawbacks of specialization better.

I wish, as well, that there was a way to upgrade towns to cities without the use of gold. Everything just costs gold in this game. How about towns could store up food for X turns to turn into cities? What if high population towns cost less to upgrade than small towns? This would make some logical sense and could add dynamism to the game.

I have a mod in the creation forum that fixes towns IMO. The only thing I can’t do is implement my concept of settlement limits being driven by distance from the capital.

It’s very fast growth, cheap settlers, improved bonuses for town specializations, new science and culture towns.

And more expensive cities.

It’s quite fun IMO, just that the AI doesn’t know what to do with it.

 

[queenpea]

They already do (bad UI)

LOL, good to know!