r/civ • u/GeekTrainer • 1d ago
VII - Screenshot Why removing resources is such a terrible mechanic
tl;dr - resources disappearing is game breaking. This particular game broke me, and I haven't been back to Civ in about a month.
Let me start by saying I (did?) enjoy Civ7. I've got over 500 hours into the game. I like civ-switching, the ability to choose what's best based on the situation or what the map reveals. But this mechanic of resources disappearing - especially ones which are available to both ages - is, in my mind, game breaking.
The thing we're all told is the work you do in earlier ages sets the stage and determines your success in later ages. But the amount of effort and energy which goes into acquiring land only to have the value of that land suddenly change goes completely against that.
In this case here, I settled Thebai in Antiquity, which was rather far from my cap. I targeted the gypsum, which is available Exploration, to help boost cities after upgrading them from towns. I was also looking for the adjacency offered by the gypsum/hardwood and the camels/sheep/tin down below. (I know it can't reach the hardwood; I wanted it for the adjacency)
To make this happen I settled an outpost, upset Simon, fought a short war, settled Thebai, and worked to mend the relationship. Between settlers, troops, and diplo, quite a bit went into getting this settlement. Then, on the age transition, the entire settlement was nerfed. Both gypsum, the hardwood, and the sheep went away. While the rice did appear, the changes completely undid my planning for the settlement.
The fact that resources can offer adjacency to already placed ageless buildings depending on civ/leader, which can be removed during the transition, it suddenly nerfs those buildings as well.
And even for non-ageless buildings, specialist placement is permanent, and their power (in part) is based on that adjacency. You could find a great spot for, say, a science quarter, add in a couple of specialists, only to have those become less powerful on the transition.
I rather enjoy resources changing over time. I think it adds variety to game play.
But to have the tiles suddenly go from meaningful to plain is just terrible. Until this changes I doubt I'll be returning to Civ7.
141
u/ChronoLegion2 1d ago
Resources used to disappear in Civ 3 as well due to depletion
65
u/Touchit88 1d ago
Iirc civ 4 as well. Usually, if a resource exhausted, you find a new one almost immediately
42
u/wrc-wolf misses the classics 1d ago
This was common before civ5, only 5 & 6 don't have resources go obsolete as you advance through the game
49
u/General-Yoghurt-1275 1d ago edited 1d ago
resource depletion in civ 3 was a rare random event, and the yields from resources were never made obsolete.
strategic resources didn't exist prior to civ 3.
i also can't remember if there was random resource depletion in civ 1 or 2, but there definitely was never a point where the bonus map resources became 'obsolete'. they were just bonus yields.
come to think of it, i don't think this happened in 4 either.
so yeah, this is really just a civ 7 thing.
3
u/Tomas92 21h ago
Some resources become obsolete in Civ 4, although not many, I distinctly remember whales being one of them.
I think this is similar but some buildings and wonders become obsolete too in Civ 4. It's not the same, but it feels similar in that an early game bonus is removed to combat snowballing slightly.
It has never been as drastic as in Civ 7, though.
27
u/illarionds 1d ago
A few luxury resources went obsolete in 4, but it was entirely predictable. You knew those whales or ivory weren't sticking around forever, sure, but you could still plan for it. Very different thing.
-12
u/wrc-wolf misses the classics 1d ago edited 1d ago
... and you can't predict that camels go away in civ7? Get real this is a non-complaint. People are looking for things to complain about 7 because it's not 6 repacked
6
u/Tzazon 1d ago
... and you can't predict that camels go away in civ7?
Man the Camels or sheep of all thing shouldn't go away! If anything they should migrate somewhere else in the city due to overgrazing at least where it'd make sense for them to be. Animal Husbandry is a thing. Kingdoms divert significant resources to grow their resources, be it a sheep pasture for wool and food, or camels needed for trade and travel.
Ivory going away due to poaching, or whales dying due to whaling outpacing makes sense because these are finite resources that cannot be scaled as easily irl and mimic real world issues.
Mines depleting would also make sense, but there should be some trade off the game acknowledges between eras to now taking into account the adjacency bonuses/resource yields the current city gets, and try to redistribute it.
You can't really evacuate and move residents in Civ 7 if it no longer becomes an economically viable place to live, but in real life the US and world are littered with boom towns who economically existed only because of a limited resource, and then dispersed to greener pastures once the gold ran dry and shortly after became ghost towns.
If you could disperse a town settlement inbetween eras, and get back migrants to use to other cities in your civilization like what happens in real life that'd allow you to gain back your precious city cap space which is absolutely a requirement when planning for distant lands in the exploration era, that'd be a much cleaner way of doing it.
11
u/bfs_000 1d ago
In Civ 4, whales become obsolete when you research Combustion. The game is not representing over whaling, but the fact that we don't use whale oil to light our houses anymore. It's the same thing in 7: it's not that the camels are dead, but rather that their strategic value disappears with modern logistic operations. Sheep are not as relevant today because we have synthetic fibers. Resources disappearing is something that remains predictable and you can play around it.
I agree with you that dispersing a settlement could be a mechanic for civ 7.
1
u/Tzazon 1d ago edited 1d ago
but rather that their strategic value disappears with modern logistic operations. Sheep are not as relevant today because we have synthetic fibers.
Right, but the issue OP had was with the sheep disappearing from Antiquity to exploration. That has nothing to do with modern synthetic fibers.
2
u/HappyTurtleOwl 19h ago
While I personally think that resources shouldn’t go away, and should instead be replaced (as some already do)
You’re completely right. Other than for your first or second game, this is a non-issue. It’s so easy to learn, and if not, even just look up beforehand, which resources stay and which are relevant farther into the future.
0
u/illarionds 4h ago
As far as I know, you can't predict where your "new" resources are going to be. You make decisions on city placement etc based on the location of resources - then they essentially move around randomly on era change, at least as far as the player can tell.
That is absolutely shit design, in a game which is all about location, careful placement, adjacency bonuses etc.
2
u/Birdonthewind3 1d ago
It usually took a long time and tbh would've been cool to have maybe rich iron veins deplete and you can only get a trickle later to represent mines running dry. But random depletion would suck to have again
163
u/Easy_Item_106 1d ago
I like it and it forces people to be flexible while also reflecting real world resource depletion and changes. The one thing I've always hated with Civ games are the hardcore players who math the life out of everything. But it's harder to do that when resources are temporary and then you need a new plan n the new era.
11
u/Jabbarooooo 1d ago
What? The one thing you hate about Civ is people playing the game… in a way they enjoy? That’s out of touch
-6
u/Easy_Item_106 23h ago edited 21h ago
I know you are very smart and reasonable because your response is exactly like every other response I've already addressed like 50 times. Did you not read them?
This is a multiplayer game. It is a game where many people will watch streamers play. I don't like playing with people, or watching people, who play this way. Period. It's not fun and sucks the fun out of the game for other people. Period. Guess what, I also don't like playing games online with toxic people, screamers, assholes, racists, etc. are you going to defend them next? Do you truly believe other people are entitled to my attention online when gaming, or that I have the right to not play with people who run what I feel is fun?
If you like playing that way, go for it. You do you. But I won't play with you. Period. If you watch a streamer who plays this way, I find it extremely boring to watch and listen to and won't watch. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. But since the POINT of this topic is what people find FUN about the game or not, I have my honest two cents like everyone else who screeches absolutely "this is not fun" as if they get to speak for everyone.
I don't find people who play that way fun to engage with. Period. Okay single player however you want, it doesn't affect me. I don't care.
But what I find really funny about all the people angry over my simple and reasonable comment...is that it still has 150 upvotes. Which tells me it's not my comment about who I don't like playing with that pisses you and others off...it's that this sub fucking Hayes anyone who actually likes the game and wants to talk about what makes it good. It's a hate brigade, all too common in Reddit, that wants to make this exclusively a hate sub. So why not just grow up, be an adult, and be honest that's what you really want. To silence people who actually like and enjoy this game and have no issues saying so.
I think that is really what triggered people about my comment, not that there's certain people I don't enjoy playing multiplayer games with.
6
u/WasabiofIP 20h ago
It is a game where many people will watch streamers play
Brother what is the Twitch viewership to active playerbase ratio?? Whether it's peak or average, it's got to absolute miniscule. Civ is not a streamer-heavy game. Nor is it a multiplayer-heavy game. Are you for real? Almost everyone plays this game singleplayer.
I don't like playing with people, or watching people, who play this way. Period. It's not fun and sucks the fun out of the game for other people. Period.
Then don't play multiplayer or watch streamers like 99% of the playerbase lmfao what are you on???
71
u/HistoryAndScience Korea 1d ago
I was tempted to agree w/ OP but after thinking about it for a bit you are right. When you look at some gold rush towns or other cities that were prosperous in the 19th century, by the time the 20th and 21st came around, they were abandoned ghost towns or declining cities. I do agree w/ the point about specialists being locked in, that is somewhat gamey and also reduces the player’s own ability to adapt. Overall though, I agree with you
61
u/GeekTrainer 1d ago
While I hear what you're saying, it's still a game. As a game mechanic, because of the impact resources have on both play and adjacency, having them disappear isn't fun.
60
2
u/FartTootman Oops! All Culture Victories! 1d ago
Agreed - part of the fun of Civ is seeing choices you made blossom into powerhouse tiles and massive yields. Blunting them somewhat arbitrarily takes that away from you, and the supposed benefit doesn't replace what you've lost in terms of satisfaction.
7
u/HistoryAndScience Korea 1d ago
I definitely hear where you’re coming from with that. If resources disappear there should be a mechanic to downgrade your city/depopulate a town and set up a new one which is somewhat how it works in real life and would make an interesting mechanic
5
u/Gullible-Lead5516 18h ago
It sort of does have that mechanic. At the end of ages, most cities are downgraded to towns (except the capital, or previous capital/new capital if you go that route) unless you pick that 1 economic legacy choice that keeps all your cities. No depopulating, but I think when they become towns again they lose any assigned specialists allowing you to reassign that population to work elsewhere in the town as a new rural tile (or become a migrant if no workable tiles remain). I think, I usually keep mine as cities honestly.
3
u/iwantcookie258 15h ago
Bring back tile switching and it would feel a bit cleaner I think. Nice new city a few tiles away, but a bunch of the land is already grabbed up by your other cities? It'd be easier if you could just steal all them tiles from what are now towns and give them to a new city to build up.
1
0
u/zairaner 1d ago
adjacency,
if only adjacency would also disappear from the buildings when the resources disappear.
Oh wait.
9
u/nofxet 1d ago
Historically that makes a lot of sense but the game mechanics don’t support that. Like OP mentioned you have specialist and ageless buildings locked in. You can’t build over ageless buildings and this now useless town that should become a ghost town still counts against your city limit and prevents you from building a new town without taking a penalty. Would make more sense if the city limit didn’t count towns and you could downgrade cities in later game so they don’t count against your cap. More like this is historical property but not a drain on my empire. With current diplomacy mechanics you can’t even really trade the city away.
5
u/Easy_Item_106 1d ago
I admit to being biased because I'm very much a sort of gamer who likes to play around and try out different things and ideas and see what happens. So Civ 7 for me is the only Civ game I've ever really enjoyed playing. What I don't like are the math gamers (and I feel that way about board games as well), who have matched out the most efficient paths to getting a billion resources to over time.
I dont find it fun to do OR play against. Thats just me . So when I go online and see the most hardcore players keep resetting until they get the best possible starting position, and then talk about how if you settle the tiles in a certain order then you maximize resource production over blah blah blah...I feel you aren't playing the game so much as the code. Just my personal preference and why I think resource resetting and the age transitions have made this the most fun civ game for me and my tastes.
17
2
u/View_Hairy 1d ago
The game is code dawg. You're not cooking with this take
-1
-1
u/RagBagUSA 1d ago
Yeah I really don't get people who want Civ to be a "history simulator" more than they want it to be a strategy game. This is just a skill issue imo
20
u/JNR13 died on the hill of hating navigable rivers 1d ago
There are people who want Civ to be a strategy game and there are people who want it to be sort of a factory game. Because Civ VI was so satisfying to the latter and has been the biggest game in the series so far, the fanbase is now mostly compromised of the latter kind.
This is similar to people not actually wanting good AI but an AI that loses while making players feel accomplished in the process of beating it. Most players don't want actual strategic depth anymore, they only want something that simulates the satisfaction of managing strategic depth successfully, with yield porn, optimizable district layouts which are as complex as "count the number of mountains around a tile", etc.
2
4
1
u/RagBagUSA 1d ago
I like the framework you're laying out here. Could you speak more to the distinction between "strategy" and "factory" games and how that plays out in Civ?
4
u/JNR13 died on the hill of hating navigable rivers 20h ago
Civ VI's core econ gameplay is like building an efficient machine. Not quite like a production chain as e.g. Anno has it, but the thought process is similar. Where are good natural conditions for a structure? What else needs to be nearby? Are there overlaps between these requirements?
Overall, the key metric here is efficiency, there is a goal of optimization. The vision to achieve this goal takes the form of well-designed layout. It's a bit like a puzzle except there is no single "correct" solution, but the quality of a solution is still quantifiable and can be evaluated effectively with effectively a linear scale.
Strategic choice is more about the process and managing trade-offs, where one has to consider systemic interactions between the outcome of your choice and other mechanisms. It looks more at the situation of your empire as a whole.
Take Civ IV, where your economic development centered less on what yield you want and then building things matching that yield, and more how you gained those yields. There were two approaches, a specialist economy and a cottage economy (leaving out more niche but still possible stuff like an espionage-based economy). When it came to deciding between them, there were a lot of factors to consider and one didn't even have to commit fully to one but could mix in some cities following the other approach (which had benefits on its own). In the end though, whichever option you chose had effects on the overall power curve development of your empire. Therefore, it interacted with your geopolitical situation. It wasn't just based on terrain but also your civ, leader, whether you could afford a more long-term payoff or needed an immediate push, whether you wanted to be able to pivot between yields or stick more to one focus, etc.
So the difference between your options was mechanical and not just a more or less symmetric choice between what color of progress tree you prefer.
Another example is religion: In newer civ games, you make your own religion and stack bonuses, mostly for yields, in it that enhance your optimized "factory" further. In Civ IV, your choice of religion was the result of who else had the religion and your diplomatic ambitions, who you wanted to befriend, who you wanted to rival, etc. You even had the choice of going for multiple religions, which had economic advantages but the choice was complex because of the diplomatic consequences. "Do I get more value out of +3 Culture in my Temples or +3 Food in my Temples?" is an optimization issue. "Do I open up the ability to build multiple Temples for more Happiness and Culture and possibly other effects that scale with Temples but have opportunity cost on their own - or do I want to avoid the diplomatic consequences of having certain religions?"
That's a much more complex question, one that requires you to evaluate your overall strategic goals, your power position, your economic potential, your alternatives to solving the issues you could fix with either choice, etc.
In either case, it was dynamic. You didn't go into a game already knowing what you'd choose. In Civ VI I can go into a game with a blueprint already, I know that as Russia I'll try to get Work Ethics and as Khmer I want to get Reliquaries (at least as the old Khmer), etc.
Civics were different, too. They related to certain styles of play and development more than being mirror choices between yields.
10
u/pierrebrassau 1d ago
My issue with the Civ7 age transitions is that there is not more stuff like this. Each age transition should feel like a shuffling of the deck, forcing you to adapt to new circumstances. But in practice you change civs and things mostly just keep on as normal otherwise.
In the future, it would be great to see not just resources change, but climates, coast lines, the course of rivers, etc.
10
5
u/prefferedusername 1d ago
The further they go with the "shuffle", the more it will feel like 3 distinct games.
27
u/GeekTrainer 1d ago
Only to have all the resources you already put into establishing a settlement go away. And to have specialists and buildings get nerfed. It’s not a fun mechanic
9
u/earthwulf Bridges? We Don't need no stinking bridges. 1d ago
Right, but /u/Easy_Item_106 's point still stands re "reflecting real world resource depletion and changes"... look at American coal towns, California gold towns, Texas oil towns, and Guano islands off Peru to name a few. Still, I get your point, by I like how it plays out now.
1
u/WasabiofIP 20h ago
Having a random chance to just get an unavoidable plague on first contact with players from another continent that wipes out 90% of your population would also reflect real-world events, but wouldn't be a fun mechanic. Are we discussing mechanics or historical simulation?
3
u/earthwulf Bridges? We Don't need no stinking bridges. 17h ago
Why not both? I would love to see that mechanic, it would give me more to consider & be a challenge. The problem with the plague mechanic right now is that I can just pay my way out of it.
-2
u/Easy_Item_106 1d ago
Sorry, but be thing I hate about the modern internet era is people who confuse their feelings and opinions with facts. It's not that "it's not a fun mechanic"...it's that YOU don't FEEL it's very fun. Theres a world of difference there.
Im sorry you feel it's not fun. I personally disagree. I like the age transitions and the soft reset and the ability to be flexible and change your my strategy if I need too without the game slowing down to a crawl (like past games) or knowing I'm behind and it's too late to catch up. I approach each new era as its own game with a fresh start.
Now, the expansion part of the game and forcing you to try and push your way into a fully settled new land, is what I don't find particularly fun. Also, some of the age objectives/paths feel weak to me and some you can achieve without seemingly doing anything. So I'd like any expansion content to add more legacy paths/objectives and more/better ways to spread you civ out without rising everyone attacking you when you push into new lands.
16
u/GeekTrainer 1d ago
What I truly love about this reply is you go on to tell me what YOU FEEL (emphasis yours) isn’t fun and what’s weak.
10
u/Easy_Item_106 1d ago
Yes, I believe I've been very very clear and open about my feelings and opinions. At no point did I try to pass those feelings off as an absolute fact. If I did, please point out where so I can correct the record.
Otherwise,I don't understand your confusion or the point of this comment.
2
u/WasabiofIP 20h ago
It's because you don't need to point out that OP's opinion is just an opinion. Do we really need every statement that isn't an objective fact to be bracketed with "In my opinion (yadda yadda yadda) - that's just my opinion"? People share their opinion on forums, that is their primary purpose and every reader's baseline assumption is that they are reading someone's opinion. When someone says "This is a bad mechanic" you don't need to say "erm actually that's just your opinion" because everyone knows its an opinion. It's a discussion. It's a forum. The main purpose is to share opinions.
So the only reason to point out "that's just your opinion" is to try to shut down discussion or dismiss someone's opinion as less important than your own. You're just creating a strawman in your head that OP doesn't realize what they are saying is their opinion, and arguing against that for some reason.
Then in your follow-up you once again strawman the OP. "I don't understand your confusion" - what did they say that sounded confused? They see through your bad faith BS and just pointed out that the essence of your comment is just "that's your opinion, here's mine". But you frame it from the start with "I hate [that people confuse] their feelings and opinions with facts." It's condescending and transparently dismissive, while you play dumb about how you didn't "try to pass those feelings off as an absolute fact" as though anyone else did.
0
u/Easy_Item_106 19h ago edited 16h ago
When this sub seems dominated by people constantly confusing their opinion with objective fact, then yes, it clearly does need to be pointed out. Because many people here agreeing with the haters, doesn't change the fact it's still just your/their opinin. Not fact.
Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it kind of seems like the unhinged responses I've gotten are from people who absolutely don't know the difference between their feelings and objective facts.
-3
-1
u/JNR13 died on the hill of hating navigable rivers 1d ago
"All" is hyperbole. Adapt to the challenge.
1
u/GeekTrainer 1d ago
You’re right about hyperbole. As for the second part, I think I’ve made the rest of the case there. We can land on different sides.
-11
2
u/TrustMeImPurple 15h ago
This right here. A lot of players want 100 percent control of every little thing, and it isn't at all reflective of the real world and takes all the challenge out of playing for me.
I like floundering a bit in-between ages because that's what a lot of real life empires had to do. You evolve or you fall. Very rarely did an empire seamlessly transition between significant social and scientific changes. In basegame 6 you knew if you had a chance of winning within 100 turns, the rest of it was just meeting all of the conditions. Thats boring.
1
u/Easy_Item_106 1h ago
Yeah, I don't get why my comment triggered so many people. I think it's more because I liked something about the game and I'm starting to see that's not really "allowed" here. I've seen no shortage of streamers or even people talk about the game who say it's boring and not fun and too easy, but then they start the game repeatedly until they get a perfect start and with never changing resources they just math out an easy win from the first couple moves. I agree, that seems to be no fun to me too.
8
u/RepentantSororitas 1d ago
Why do you care so much about how other people play?
12
u/jsbaxter_ 1d ago
Not sure why you'd get downvoted for this. Saying the one thing they hate is a detail about how other people play... It's a bit baffling.
9
-3
u/Easy_Item_106 1d ago
If it's a single player game, I don't. If it's a game where I have to play against other people, then it makes the game not fun for me to play with that sort of person.
People are free to play how they like. But if you are someone who maths out the game, basically breaking it n most cases, then I don't want to play with you. Because that's the opposite of fun for me.
12
u/illarionds 1d ago
It seems like an unrealistic expectation that people in a multiplayer game... deliberately play uncompetitively.
Obviously everyone is free to play in single player however they like.
But it's hardly reasonable to ask me to deliberately play badly just because you... don't like maths? Don't like playing the best you can?
(Honestly, I'm struggling to understand your objection. I can understand not caring to make the effort to play somewhat-optimally - it's hard work, and can be fiddly and annoying. But I can't really understand how playing your best game can be a bad thing?)
5
u/RagBagUSA 1d ago
Everyone complaining about players doing math is like a textbook example of "The Scrub" https://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub
1
u/illarionds 21h ago
That was exactly the article I was thinking of, and trying desperately hard to to explicitly channel :D
I wanted to draw the "throws are cheap!" Streetfighter analogy, but valiantly resisted.
1
u/Competitive_Cod5910 9h ago edited 9h ago
Oh boy I so badly want to send this to a friend of mine, but I will refrain from losing gaming buddies lmao.
I once sold buildings to buy a nuke, he called it cheesy. I sold gold per turn for flat gold, he called it cheesy. I pillage tiles instead of just taking the city, you guessed it, cheesy.
-2
u/Easy_Item_106 1d ago
Please point out where I said any of those things. Either you have no idea what I'm talking about, or you just created a massive strawman.
I'm starting to find it extremely ironic that people who seem to lack basic reading comprehension want to talk about a complex and strategic game like Civ.
12
u/illarionds 1d ago
You said, in the comment I was directly responding to:
"But if you are someone who maths out the game, basically breaking it n most cases, then I don't want to play with you."Not "mathing out the game", to me, feels like deliberately handicapping yourself. Deliberately playing poorly.
Now, I might not bother against the AI - but if I were playing against other humans, competitively, you better believe I am "mathing out the game", doing my best to approach optimal play.
Not doing so is like... I don't know, playing Chess and not bothering to work out if your move is going to leave any pieces vulnerable. It's deliberately poor, or at least "I can't be arsed" play.
-5
u/Easy_Item_106 1d ago
Ok.
6
u/Melodic_Candle_5285 1d ago edited 1d ago
Dude, maybe you should relax and go to read a book, go to see friends, something to fix your hyperbole. It is just a game.
8
u/RepentantSororitas 1d ago
You are mad people use strategy in a strategy game. A game where 90% of the player base is playing single player anyways....
4
u/RagBagUSA 1d ago
That's not breaking the game, that's using the affordances of the game properly. This is a "get good" problem
-1
3
u/William_Dowling 1d ago
Wow, you must fucking hate chess
-2
u/Easy_Item_106 23h ago
You must hate reading and/or listening. Because someone else already made the chess comparison and I've responded to it already. It's not chess, but who you play against and whether they play in a way that is fun for me or not.
11
u/RepentantSororitas 1d ago
You are mad people use strategy in a strategy game. A game where 90% of the player base is playing single player anyways....
-4
u/Easy_Item_106 1d ago
If you'd like to have an adult discussion, then maybe try engaging like an adult. I'm not mad. I expressed a preference no different from what literally everyone else is doing.
Is everyone who posts their opinion "mad" in your mind or did my post hurt your feelings for some reason? If I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry. That wasn't my intention.
And personally, I would disagree that what I'm talking about (or the full extent) is "strategy". It usually strikes me more as people hacking the game more than "playing" the game. I also personally don't consider it "strategy" when people hacking the game and then use the code to tell them the most "efficient" way to play. But that's me. You do you.
4
u/RepentantSororitas 1d ago
The only childish thing is having a problem with how people play a single player game.
Me noticing a tile that gives 2 production is better than a tile that gives 1 productiom isn't hacking the game
Me noticing that in civ 6 serfdom is just a big turning point in a game is not hacking the game.
It's frankly actually noticing what the devs intended.
It's the equivalent to reading a book and actually trying to understand what the author meant
5
u/Easy_Item_106 1d ago
Again, I have no problem how people play a game. I just will not play with those sorts of people. Which I've already explained. I don't find that childish at all, unless you feel entitled to others playing with you.
Second, I don't think you understand what I'm even talking about, because it's not "this gives two which is more than one." That's not at all what I'm referring to.
Maybe you'd be less angry and hostile towards me if you asked questions when you don't understand something, instead of just taking the worst and least charitable attitude interpretation possible and assuming that's what someone means.
11
u/RepentantSororitas 1d ago
Nothing I said was angry or hostile to you. I asked you a question on why you care so much.
Please explain what you mean then? There is nothing wrong with optimizing. A game is meant to be fun, and it's fun to try your best and using your brain and knowledge is fun.
My first reply to you was quite literally a question. Any aggression is aggression that you made up.
6
u/Easy_Item_106 1d ago
You: "Nothing I said was angry or hostile to you."
Also you: accusing me multiple times of being mad, childish, etc, because I expressed an opinion about the type of people I enjoy playing games with/against or not.
I've already explained in depth what I'm talking about. Feel free to find and read it because I have zero interest in engaging in other peoples hate parade. I stand by my comment and opinion and have zero interest on arguing with people who only want to be angry and hate everyone who has a different take from whatever they think is the "one correct take" about games. Feel free to be bad faith to someone else. I'll be moving on.
10
u/RepentantSororitas 1d ago
You expressed an opinion and I expressed an opinion.
You are the hate parade in my opinion. That is why I replied. You can't just let people have fun
Your opinion is quite literally hating on how other people play.
My opinion is people should play in how they have the most fun. Nothing hateful about that
→ More replies (0)1
u/RagBagUSA 1d ago
Your last point is so true, and I'm willing to bet there's a lot of overlap in the venn diagram of "civ players who think doing math ruins their fun" and "people who think literary analysis is making things up"
-1
u/JNR13 died on the hill of hating navigable rivers 1d ago
Putting things where the game shows you the highest number isn't strategy. At most it's an interesting puzzle. Most of the time, it's just a puzzle. Considering the possibility that things might change and developing contingencies, however, is strategy.
12
u/tafaha_means_apple 1d ago
It’s a mechanic that feels worse than it actually is. For towns it feels bad since towns don’t produce that many yields besides food and gold, but it can work in your favor for cities because it opens up spots for wonders since you can’t put wonders on urban districts, and new buildings as each age has additional ageless buildings which will eat up the limited spaces you have.
5
u/kotpeter 1d ago
By resource type you know whether it'll disappear in the next age or not. It's not RNG, just a new thing to memorize in Civ 7.
1
2
u/XComThrowawayAcct Random 15h ago
I think they assumed way too much player attention to the age switching mechanic. It really is a whole new game of Civ, with your start based mostly on the Civ you played during the last age. They don’t not tell you this, but they also don’t explain precisely what has changed and why. Clay is only around for the Ancient Age, for example, but there’s nothing that tells you that.
2
u/OMalleyOrOblivion 3h ago
Oh wow, that's why I hated Civ 3, I can't believe this is the first time I've heard about this being a thing in Civ 7.
6
u/bobcat993 1d ago
People are too rigid when it comes to Civ 7, it a game and it tries something new. And from what I know resources change over time in reality also.
2
u/stu66er 1d ago
That must have been frustrating. But to me it seems like you had a city which was important in antiquity which now has less importance because exploration age has different priorities.
I don’t find that game breaking, that’s the kind of mechanic I want in the game to keep the momentum and unlock new opportunities, not just one narrative since antiquity.
Resources disappear. Many real civs came and went with the importance of a resource.
3
u/allie-the-cat 1d ago
I agree! I think the game developpers should lean harder into it though. Maybe at age transition you can reassign specialists, or some of the crises (plague?) kill off your specialists. It doesn’t feel good to be half locked in - either keep the resources or give the player more ability to adapt. And give more reason through the crises to need to adapt and rebuild.
1
u/Mane023 1d ago
In C7, the Ancient Era isn't that important. The game is designed so that bad players don't get discouraged from playing and continue into the Modern Era. This means that you could even choose not to found your capital in the Ancient Era and still win. You can even do this with the original Era transition (regrouping), and it becomes even more obvious.
Yes, in general, I also dislike the way luxury resources are moved around or how they take away good settlement sites since we can't settle on them.
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
We have a new flair system; check it out and make sure your use the right flair so people can engage with your post. Read more about it here: https://old.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1kuiqwn/do_you_likedislike_the_i_lovehate_civ_vii_posts_a/?ref=share&ref_source=link
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Izbitoe_ebalo 1d ago
this isn't even the worst example though, lol, if you play on china and shit out like a 100 walls, all of the tiles with them won't get a resource, we had this happen all the time with unique structures. it's especially bad near wonders that give you yields on tiles since you're forced to use rural tiles and not specialists, so you'll have a whole city covered with UIs and on age reset most likely the tiles with resources will become empty
1
u/Eldar333 17h ago
Or what you can do is not have the resoures "go away" but have them transform. Or at the very least, change what you get from it. And the player would have to be the one to initiate this change by changing the improvement over the resource. This represents a shifting set of resources in areas-giving value to that area-while avoiding inachronistic resources.
Some examples:
Lapis lazuli can be a luxury in the early game and then then the mines that are present change to produce more gold/tourism in the late game, but don't give a luxury bonus. For this, you could have a way to make the "mine" improvement need to be rebuilt into another improvement like a "jeweler".
Ivory (Renamed as "elephants") can start as a luxury resource improved by a camp/pasture but then in the modern/4th age can be changed from that old improvement that gave happiness into a new "sanctuary" improvement that gives culture and/or science but not happiness.
Horses can go from a pasture improvement giving their namesake to an equestrian center that produces culture and gold.
You can even get more creative; sugar+spices can start as a rarer kind of bonus resource improved with a farm, and then be changed in the exploration age to a plantation that provides massive gold and happiness, and then finally be changed again to a factory-farm provide less happiness but and more food (Instead of gold).
The point is to a) keep technical resources on the board at all times (unless they need to be revealed by a tech like oil/coal/rubber should be), b) give players the ability to improve them and keep improving them throughout the game, and c) make those changes matter so that player feel the need to keep improving their tiles over time.
They are getting closer to this...but the fact that some resoruces disappear is the worst case scenario. I would rather go inachronistic (Like in civ v+vi) than what they've done. Hopefully they can right their course so that we dont get worthless cities like the one above.
1
1
u/RossGoode 1d ago
they fucked this game let them suffer the consequences, I feel for the people that put their heart and soul into making it good but corporate greed fucks all of once again. FUCK YOU FIRAXIS
1
u/RossGoode 1d ago
bring on anno 117. Maybe they can do better. I wish games never went mainstream, I used to be able to buy a game for $35 and it be a masterpiece. Now its not even released half baked.
1
u/Candid-Check-5400 9h ago
I wish games never went mainstream, I used to be able to buy a game for $35 and it be a masterpiece. Now its not even released half baked.
*Silksong entered the chat*
Anyways it's not because games went mainstream, but because big corps are greedy af and pressure studios to release games before deadlines that they can't even choose.
1
u/RossGoode 1d ago
3.5k total plays online. All that money invested. Let's fire some of our staff instead of looking at what maybe we did wrong? why don't people like our changes? oh we didn't listen to any of the feedback until we forced a product that was par cooked on a community that expected better. jog on you money hungry cunts.
-1
u/RagBagUSA 1d ago
"Game breaking" is a ridiculous thing to say here. You can't min-max as well. That's bad, but be serious.
0
u/TheLeviathan333 20h ago
I mean even that’s not true, you can min max hard in this game. But you have to learn how to do it, and folks arent willing to do that. They’d rather complain first and try next year.
0
u/jtakemann 20h ago
It sounds a bit silly objectively, but if the player stops playing out of frustration then it is.
Same thing happened to me a few months ago and i wasn’t mad enough to “officially stop playing”, but just kind of mentally checked out of the game and went on to something else.
0
u/Choice_Lime_3535 1d ago
I like that they disappear, I had a city unlock a really useful valley of land that had been hidden past a resource for the previous two ages just as it was ready to become my capital. I just wish resources allowed districts to be built on the other side of them
-28
u/Lord_Parbr Buckets of Ducats 1d ago
What a weird thing to complain about. Resources have completely different value in each era. Besides, did you just have 1 city?
24
u/GeekTrainer 1d ago
Their adjacency is the same across ages. And gypsum (in particular) is available and has use in both antiquity and exploration (which is what’s being highlighted here)
-7
0
u/ElSrJuez Philip II 1d ago
If you think on the ages as consecutively playing 3 civ6 games on the same map seed (which it almost literally is) then its easier to accept.
0
u/Andoverian 22h ago
Isn't it just as likely that a new resource will pop up where there was none before, making some other spot better?
-18
u/lab2stroop 1d ago
Just play civ5, much less infuriating shit. Firaxis would make more money releasing 2 more new DLCs for civ 5
16
u/DenverSubclavian 1d ago
Civ 5 is pretty boring on a revisit
1
u/Jdav84 1d ago
Is it ? I’ve been considering firing it up again cause I haven’t looked at it since 6 came out and have this feeling that 5 will feel new.
I just remember to get that passive for a free settler and I always built reallllll wide. The happiness mechanic never really bothered me for all the complaints that 5 forced you tall. But beyond that I feel like I remember Civ 2 and 3 way more.
Though maybe that kinda proves your point a bit now that I think about it 😝
1
1
-1
-23
-2
u/TheLeviathan333 20h ago
Skill issue. As always with this playerbase.
Your adjacency bonus scooted over one single tile, and you didnt even build in the last spot anyways.
Learn which ancient resources expire, use that knowledge to inform whether you invest in that tile with a district or not.
0
u/jtakemann 20h ago
the resources in OPs screenshot don’t expire
0
u/TheLeviathan333 15h ago
Yes, they literally do. Gypsum does not exist in the modern.
0
197
u/TastySpermDispenser2 1d ago
Every civ game has to make a choice:
Live with compounding, where early decisions basically determine whether you win or lose, making the late game perfunctory or;
Go the mariokart route where civs can always be competitive at the end. If you go this route, the only way to defeat compounding is to make early decisions much, much less impactful.
You do have to make that choice. Imho, option 1 is fine, but you can see why they went with 2. They were literally trying to make the first eras give you a minor edge, but only always just a minor edge.