Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[pmarc]

I really don’t get this obsession with towns being convenient just because there’s no building queue. There’s like a 30 settlement limit max at the end of modern. Meanwhile you constant have to click on which ploy to expand with growth when in earlier civ games builders could just be automated.

This seems very much like a party line thing of “the official reason for towns is I can set them and forget them”. But you don’t. They’re constantly growing and requiring attention.

I don't share that view of convenience and I don't dislike some types of micromanagement in Civ. I love optimizing worker turns and switching tiles in Civ4, but I enjoy having a different kind of game too.

Like I said above, the main advantage I see in the town to city conversion is that it adds a tradeoff for spending vs. saving of gold. It's less interesting in later ages when gold becomes too cheap, but that's a general symptom of the lack of balance late game. Like how population growth occurs way too often with stacking fish, leading to more aimless specialist assignment in that phase of the game.

 

[tman2000]

?

I was saying that having a cultural specialist that gives +6 culture instead of +2 does make a difference if they add up as much as they do in modern

 

[tman2000]

Resource colonies have always existed in Civ. You would found a city with little long-term potential just to grab a resource you need. They have always counted against the previous game equivalent of the "settlement limit" (maintenance, etc.). So you have to decide if the resource is worth settling a poor city (now in this game, town) over.

So why not have build queues in these towns then?

 

[queenpea]

I was saying that having a cultural specialist that gives +6 culture instead of +2 does make a difference if they add up as much as they do in modern

My problem isn’t mainly the yield. It’s the generalist nature of the yield distribution. Supercharging is not specialization.

 

[tman2000]

My problem isn’t mainly the yield. It’s the generalist nature of the yield distribution. Supercharging is not specialization.

Maybe putting a specialist on a specific building type will give points towards a super specialist which will do as you describe.

 

[queenpea]

Maybe putting a specialist on a specific building type will give points towards a super specialist which will do as you describe.

Or just let us assign specialist to buildings (not districts) and spare us the math of calculating bonuses based on adjacency which is not explained in the game well or at all.

 

[pmarc]

I was saying that having a cultural specialist that gives +6 culture instead of +2 does make a difference if they add up as much as they do in modern

So to be clear, you would prefer for example adding a +6 science specialist to your univ/observatory district and a +6 culture specialist to your kiln/pavillon, instead of a +4/+2 and a +2/+4, respectively?

Or to put it further, you would like to put culture specialists on both even if the yield is lower for an artist on the univ/observatory?

I would say in a way you can already do that though. Because let's say you stacked 5 specialists on that science district, in modern you can choose to put (e.g.) a +19 schoolhouse, or say a +13 opera house, i.e. put the less optimal building for adjacencies if you want your max specialist district to now do culture instead.

 

[tman2000]

,

I would say in a way you can already do that though. Because let's say you stacked 5 specialists on that science district, in modern you can choose to put (e.g.) a +19 schoolhouse, or say a +13 opera house, i.e. put the less optimal building for adjacencies if you want your max specialist district to now do culture instead.

so part of the problem is I and most people aren’t even completely sure how specialist adjacencies even work. It’s mostly about placing where the yields are highest. In any even it doesn’t matter. There’s broad consensus the modern age is pointless anyway.

All I was talking about was a concept of making specialists more interesting and we were sort of having a sub conversation about it.

 

[bbbt]

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.

Honestly I think I'd prefer if the town options were just to leave the town to grow, or like a drop down "Redirect food and production to city X" or something along those lines.

 

[Chiyo]

Just checked the current rankinga and Civ7 is at position 127 with 5.848 current players. Civ 5 is at 94 and Civ 6 at 40.

 

[queenpea]

Just checked the current rankinga and Civ7 is at position 127 with 5.848 current players. Civ 5 is at 94 and Civ 6 at 40.

That can't be good. It feels not great.

 

[user746383]

Definitely not, as I mentioned in the other thread it's around the level of Brotato and getting handily beat by Cookie Clicker.

Has anyone also noticed that most of the dedicated volume Civ streamers are doing other games now? Marbozir, Boes, Potato, Ursa. Maybe others as well, though those are the ones I was familiar with. They don't really mention Civ7 very positively (if they mention it at all). I've heard people are looking forward to Endless Legend 2 for 4X, but otherwise they are just playing different games like AoW4 or even other genres. It would be interesting if anyone has any numbers or thoughts on this trend.

Something else is that the civ subreddit seems to now be a mix of VII and VI content, with half of the VII content complaining about the game. For a while it was only VII content.

 

[Civinator]

Also interesting: At steam there is no curator who recommends Crossroads of the World (but 28 who are not recommending it):

 

[queenpea]

Definitely not, as I mentioned in the other thread it's around the level of Brotato and getting handily beat by Cookie Clicker.

Has anyone also noticed that most of the dedicated volume Civ streamers are doing other games now? Marbozir, Boes, Potato, Ursa. Maybe others as well, though those are the ones I was familiar with. They don't really mention Civ7 very positively (if they mention it at all). I've heard people are looking forward to Endless Legend 2 for 4X, but otherwise they are just playing different games like AoW4 or even other genres. It would be interesting if anyone has any numbers or thoughts on this trend.

Something else is that the civ subreddit seems to now be a mix of VII and VI content, with half of the VII content complaining about the game. For a while it was only VII content.

I don't have any data to back up my speculation, but it could be that the streamers are just not receiving the views they would hope for on Civ VII content, leading them to focus on content that might perform better for their channels. Potato's video on Endless Legend 2 was full of subtle (and not so subtle) criticism of Civ VII. Ursa was playing VI the other day as well. I don't check Boes regularly, but it's safe to say that Marbozir is not a fan of VII in its current state.

 

[luca 83]

Sorry, but Civ 7 is no longer a game to build a civilization to stand the test of time. That´s why the new slogan is: "Build something you believe in".

The problem is, how should I build something I believe in, if the new mechanisms in Civ 7 are defenitely not convincing me ? The immortal leader was always the worst element for me in every version of the civ series. In earlier versions I simply ignored that element by only looking at the other civs and ignoring their wrong leaders and in Civ 3 there is a chance to mitigate that problem by having at least 4 era-specific leaders for each civ.

And now I should only believe in those ridicolous immortal leaders and all the civs are only "sound and smoke" ? And with all this - in my eyes - nonsense I should be able to build something that I believe in ?? My answer is no !

You are absolutely right that fixed leaders are anachronistic and creating new ethnic leaders without historical modifiers is even more damaging.

 

[queenpea]

You are absolutely right that fixed leaders are anachronistic and creating new ethnic leaders without historical modifiers is even more damaging.

The reason that a player may not connect with a 3D model of a historic leader should have nothing to do with said model's skin tone.

 

[Smegger213]

The reason that a player may not connect with a 3D model of a historic leader should have nothing to do with said model's skin tone.

I just want most of the leaders to be actual leaders that actually ran their respective countries. You know. Kings, Queens, Presidents and Prime Ministers etc. But, I guess we all know that they are saving most of those for paid for DLC packs.

 

[Core Imposter]

Heads implode, shills flee, the flies sew their rows of maggots. The earth prepares to open, dust to dust, to receive,
conceived in sin and born in corruption and Civ passeth from the stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud.

Eh, not so bad.

​

 

[queenpea]

I just want most of the leaders to be actual leaders that actually ran their respective countries. You know. Kings, Queens, Presidents and Prime Ministers etc. But, I guess we all know that they are saving most of those for paid for DLC packs.

That is fine, but can we stop complaining about "ethnicity"? It's 2025, and this is ridiculous. Not everyone in the world is caucasian.

 

[Smegger213]

That is fine, but can we stop complaining about "ethnicity"? It's 2025, and this is ridiculous. Not everyone in the world is caucasian.

Did I complain about that? I don't think I did.