Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[stealth_nsk]

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...

Well, it sounds pretty logical if focus on the fact that the majority of people who bought game on release, left reciews and post on forums are those who played and liked previous versions of civ games (in the review text analysis it was clear that vast majority of them compare Civ7 with previous games). If you already liked something, you are very likely to enjoy feature which is almost the same, but improved. If you try something new, you may like it or not, it's not connected with your previous experience.

This makes an interesting logical conclusion. New features are divisive for old fans not because those features are bad, but just because they are new. Same thing happened with 1UpT. This tells us nothing about how the game is perceived by players who are not familiar with previous civ gamea.

 

[tman2000]

This makes an interesting logical conclusion. New features are divisive for old fans not because those features are bad, but just because they are new. Same thing happened with 1UpT. This tells us nothing about how the game is perceived by players who are not familiar with previous civ gamea.

I don’t agree with this. I already stated my opinion but in summary I think the streamlining is just boring and that’s the issue, not the age system per se.

Examples: missionaries, explorers

The modern age is considered relatively pointless. There’s a lot they could do to address that but alas it would require effort and design which post 2020 game developers seem allergic to.

 

[tman2000]

I don’t agree with this. I already stated my opinion but in summary I think the streamlining is just boring and that’s the issue, not the age system per se.

Examples: missionaries, explorers

The modern age is considered relatively pointless. There’s a lot they could do to address that but alas it would require effort and design which post 2020 game developers seem allergic to.

Let me give an example: specialists. Specialists are clearly a vestigial feature of something more involved that was probably streamlined late in development. I forget, but in the game files specialists are labeled as something else that evokes… I don’t know it reminds me of Civ 4’s great people points

Regarless, specialist placement is so stupidly irrelevant I don’t know why it isn’t automated. Outside of the exploration age science victory, it doesn’t matter where you play specialists other than where the most yield is.

A better version of modern would be where you train specialists and they actually specialize (culture, banking, science) and on top of that have tiers (probably 2, then a third for the 4th age where there would be even more sub specialization). So the second tier specialist, not present in exploration, specializes into one of the basic yield categories. Then you can assign them based on what buildings you have.

People will call this “micromanagement” but it’s not. I’m sick of that red herring. Having an auto-governor where I click “I want happiness now” or “you know what let me customize I need happiness but also some influence” is not that tedious (though it would mean the devs have to actually make a UI god forbid having to do that much work).

What’s tedious is having the leader models slowly load up and zoom in five times a turn for every last initiative they propose. Or having to click on what tiles to improve when in past games you could automate builders.

This anti-tedious stuff was probably a design intent but with the final product it’s coming off more as an excuse to deflect criticism of half-baked features

 

[Noble Zarkon]

when to upgrade to a city.

There's no automatic answer which is good!

 

[tman2000]

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

The game is too easy for that answer to actually matter. It’s more like a lame and limited sandbox.

What matters far more on tight plays at higher difficulties is whether your start location has the right resources randomly nearby

 

[Leucarum]

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.

Some of the folk more into modding described each age as being like a different mod of Civ7. So if that is how it was structured I suspect putting all ages into one might be more plausible than you'd think at first glance. I'd guess it depends on how easily you can add the rest of the tech trees/unit types, change legacy paths etc...

I do actually like the rubberbanding of millitary units. Combat in previous civs was pretty boring, in 7 the narrower tech bands between units from different civs really encourage a combined arms approach rather than spamming unit X... But one player in our multiplayer group found that 90% of his enjoyment of civs was rushing the top tier millitary units and then crushing others with them, to him Civ7 felt like a personal attack on his preferred playstyle. So I see where you are coming from.

Well, it sounds pretty logical if focus on the fact that the majority of people who bought game on release, left reciews and post on forums are those who played and liked previous versions of civ games (in the review text analysis it was clear that vast majority of them compare Civ7 with previous games). If you already liked something, you are very likely to enjoy feature which is almost the same, but improved. If you try something new, you may like it or not, it's not connected with your previous experience.

This makes an interesting logical conclusion. New features are divisive for old fans not because those features are bad, but just because they are new. Same thing happened with 1UpT. This tells us nothing about how the game is perceived by players who are not familiar with previous civ gamea.

Well, I guess the mixed reception also tells us that new players are not exactly wowed by it.

This is coming from a place of love for Civ7 - I think even those of us who enjoy it would be burying our heads in the sand if we thought things were going well...

 

[queenpea]

There's no automatic answer which is good!

But the answer right now is, in 99% of the cases, upgrade the town to a city. I understand they are working on this now, so hopefully it will be more nuanced in the future and towns will be more important than they are currently.

 

[stealth_nsk]

But the answer right now is, in 99% of the cases, upgrade the town to a city. I understand they are working on this now, so hopefully it will be more nuanced in the future and towns will be more important than they are currently.

Yep, the next patch is supposed to add much more importance to towns

 

[Core Imposter]

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.

You are right and it is an example of the old Mark Twain quote. It's not the things you don't know that will get you but the things you know for sure that just ain't so.

Civ VII sure seems like a game that was built by checklist. No soul.

 

[Xur]

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...

That's how I felt about civ6. I tried again and again to "fix" civ6 with mods. I'm not doing that again.

Classic mode might be enough for some people, but as someone that did not like civ6 (i hated builders), it's far from enough. What is classic mode even at this point? I would prefer less focus on leaders, no ages as civ7, no civ/leader mixing, no inherent city defence values, no civ switching, I want workers back and I want larger maps than civ3. You can go crazy with experimental things, but instead of changing core features, I would prefer them to expand or add systems instead of half-cooked replacement systems.

So with all that in mind, modding is out of the question and I think Firaxis would be better off giving you what you want and ignore me. I just hope there's a little reflection and consequence before they start developing civ8 (in light of reviews and player numbers).

 

[Noble Zarkon]

But the answer right now is, in 99% of the cases, upgrade the town to a city.

That's certainly the meta for high level min/maxer types but not for everyone .....

 

[tman2000]

Yep, the next patch is supposed to add much more importance to towns

I predict they're just going to ease up on the growth rate, based on what's been said and rumored. Maybe they'll do what I've recommended and boost the yields from towns to put pressure on wide gameplay. I'd be shocked if they actually make connections interesting and intuitive and allow you to control where food yields go.

 

[queenpea]

That's certainly the meta for high level min/maxer types but not for everyone .....

My point is that there is an objectively correct answer to the question right now, and the answer is to upgrade. This is why the devs are working to balance this, so we will better see what they came up with in the next patch.

 

[queenpea]

Let me give an example: specialists. Specialists are clearly a vestigial feature of something more involved that was probably streamlined late in development. I forget, but in the game files specialists are labeled as something else that evokes… I don’t know it reminds me of Civ 4’s great people points

Regarless, specialist placement is so stupidly irrelevant I don’t know why it isn’t automated. Outside of the exploration age science victory, it doesn’t matter where you play specialists other than where the most yield is.

A better version of modern would be where you train specialists and they actually specialize (culture, banking, science) and on top of that have tiers (probably 2, then a third for the 4th age where there would be even more sub specialization). So the second tier specialist, not present in exploration, specializes into one of the basic yield categories. Then you can assign them based on what buildings you have.

People will call this “micromanagement” but it’s not. I’m sick of that red herring. Having an auto-governor where I click “I want happiness now” or “you know what let me customize I need happiness but also some influence” is not that tedious (though it would mean the devs have to actually make a UI god forbid having to do that much work).

What’s tedious is having the leader models slowly load up and zoom in five times a turn for every last initiative they propose. Or having to click on what tiles to improve when in past games you could automate builders.

This anti-tedious stuff was probably a design intent but with the final product it’s coming off more as an excuse to deflect criticism of half-baked features

These are good ideas. I was disappointed by how specialists are implemented in the game. Instead of specializing, they are actually generalists—they just flat out improve the tile in exchange for happiness and food.

Having artists, scientists, merchants, etc. would be much more interesting.

I would love rural specialists as well to give boosts to farms, mines, mills, etc.

 

[Leucarum]

That's how I felt about civ6. I tried again and again to "fix" civ6 with mods. I'm not doing that again.

Classic mode might be enough for some people, but as someone that did not like civ6 (i hated builders), it's far from enough. What is classic mode even at this point? I would prefer less focus on leaders, no ages as civ7, no civ/leader mixing, no inherent city defence values, no civ switching, I want workers back and I want larger maps than civ3. You can go crazy with experimental things, but instead of changing core features, I would prefer them to expand or add systems instead of half-cooked replacement systems.

So with all that in mind, modding is out of the question and I think Firaxis would be better off giving you what you want and ignore me. I just hope there's a little reflection and consequence before they start developing civ8 (in light of reviews and player numbers).

Sounds like you want a remaster of 5? Or an earlier version?

 

[Xur]

Sounds like you want a remaster of 5? Or an earlier version?

No, I wouldn’t want to pay for that or play it. I want a new Civ game. Think of all the Civ games as a tree: Civ 1 is the trunk, and the newer versions are branches growing from it. I just want civ6 and Civ7 cut off the tree, and for the series to iterate and improve from civ4 and civ5 instead.

 

[Krikkit1]

These are good ideas. I was disappointed by how specialists are implemented in the game. Instead of specializing, they are actually generalists—they just flat out improve the tile in exchange for happiness and food.

Having artists, scientists, merchants, etc. would be much more interesting.

I would love rural specialists as well to give boosts to farms, mines, mills, etc.

They are specialists, the specialty depends on the building adjacencies (it might be nice if it was 1 culture + 1 sci + 1 from each base building type in addition to the 50% adjacency boost)

 

[queenpea]

They are specialists, the specialty depends on the building adjacencies (it might be nice if it was 1 culture + 1 sci + 1 from each base building type in addition to the 50% adjacency boost)

Yes but the bonuses do not change dramatically tile from tile. What I am suggesting would be to place an “artist” on the kiln for +5 culture. Instead you get 2 science, 2 culture, 2 gold, etc. That is what seems general to me. Basically you just choose the best overall yield. It would be more interesting to say: I really want this city to focus on culture, so I will place artists here.

 

[Leucarum]

No, I wouldn’t want to pay for that or play it. I want a new Civ game. Think of all the Civ games as a tree: Civ 1 is the trunk, and the newer versions are branches growing from it. I just want civ6 and Civ7 cut off the tree, and for the series to iterate and improve from civ4 and civ5 instead.

Hmm. The one I'd prune from the tree is 5. That's the only game I dropped out for.

But I can understand the sentiment, SMAC for me remains the pinnacle of civ, and Beyond Earth didn't even come close to scratching that itch.

 

[tman2000]

Yes but the bonuses do not change dramatically tile from tile. What I am suggesting would be to place an “artist” on the kiln for +5 culture. Instead you get 2 science, 2 culture, 2 gold, etc. That is what seems general to me. Basically you just choose the best overall yield. It would be more interesting to say: I really want this city to focus on culture, so I will place artists here.

My idea was that a culture specialist can be assigned to a happiness building and produce half yields, or to a science building to produce just a little science not worth the cost but if you really want to milk science for a few turns.