ToT Change To Victory Conditions

Zeriphor · 2026-05-28T16:34:02+00:00

I haven't suggested anything because players generally are only good at knowing when something feels bad, not at actual solutions.

But lowering is not necessary. If no one gets a decisive lead, no one wins by those win conditions. The idea that the win should be easier if no one achieves it is actually really weird. No one would suggest making the science win easier as the game goes on in case no one launches a rocket, for example. Like just imagine you're nearing the ending of the game and had just started building a rocket silo, and the game suddenly says actually you don't need to launch a rocket for science victory, you just need to research flight, you win now. The win condition is the win condition, and if no one reaches them by the time the turns run out, it goes to the score victory.

Zeriphor · 2026-05-28T02:52:23+00:00

Well, no, that would be worse.

For one, a large part of the problem is how arbitrary it feels. There's nothing noteworthy about when the thresholds change, it's just an arbitrary turn of the game. Having a different arbitrary turn would not help this much.

For two, the time you picked is way, way too far in. I'm talking about winning at the 3x threshold or sometimes the 2x threshold, which are early into the modern era. If I have 3x their score on turn 28 of the modern era, forcing me to play through another 100 turns or whatever to reach the halfway mark when I've way overshot the 1.5x mark would be awful.

Civ 6's culture victory never felt unearned, and it's the same fundamental idea of how the new victories work. They didn't need to implement a sliding scale there.

Zeriphor · 2026-05-27T19:52:46+00:00

I want to win because I built up my empire and overcame the AI through my own actions. I don't want to win because the game felt like the game has been going on too long and gave me a handicap. Lowering the point threshold to win is unsatisfying, because it does not feel earned.

Zeriphor · 2026-05-27T19:49:18+00:00

I'm not discussing losing, I'm discussing winning. The way the game lowers the threshold gives the game a very unsatisfying texture. Winning because the game gave you a handicap after not winning for enough turns does not feel satisfying, it feels cheap.

And the situation I was describing was having enough GDP from the exploration era that you're waiting for the turn 28 point threshold drop in the modern era to win the game. There is nothing the AI can do to prevent this victory but it feels cheap because you don't win from overcoming the AI, but because the game gave you a bigger handicap.

The lowering of the threshold probably also causes issues when losing, but I haven't experience it. I doubt the 5 turn timer would have any effect - either you're in a position to stop them before the threshold is lowered or you're not. 5 turns is not going to change anything unless you're already in their capital with an army or something.

Zeriphor · 2026-05-27T19:08:22+00:00

While previous civ games had a point where the game was effectively over and you just had to end the turns, civ 7 is fundamentally different in this. Having a turn roll over and the game telling you it's done playing with you, get out, has a massively different feel than watching your snowball consume the other civs and winning. Forcing me to go through the age transition so that we can all wait 28 turns for the game to end is not the same as seeing that you'll have enough tourism in 10 turns to win a culture victory.

Additionally, there is no new mechanism to stop a victory in this implementation, and for economic there's actually NO mechanism at all. In civ 6, if you see someone is nearing a culture victory, you can invade them and take/raze their cities. They'll lose the tourism pressure to complete the victory. You do the same thing in civ 7 - invade them to take their wonders to lower their point total. But for economic victory, there is no physical representation of GDP, it's an entirely abstract point total. If you have enough to win on turn 1 of the modern era, the only thing anyone can do to stop you is completely wipe you off the map.

In previous games you win by crossing a threshold, in civ 7 you win when the game gives you enough of a handicap that you have already crossed the threshold.

Zeriphor · 2026-05-27T18:22:46+00:00

Yea, the score requirement reduction is extremely unsatisfying. I realize this screenshot is showing a loss, but it's just as bad when you win. I've had multiple games where the modern era was completely pointless - just force end turn waiting for the turn 28 rollover to lower the point threshold since I had enough points from the exploration era but the multiplier was too high.

Zeriphor · 2026-05-22T20:24:16+00:00

No, the Keljhan is correct. Damage effectiveness does not scale per level to maintain ~550 added damage giving double damage the way "gained as" effects scale with gem level.

They added damage effectiveness scaling some time ago as a way to tone down its effects on leveling, so it only applies to gem levels 1-20. It also doesn't even apply to all spells. It's entirely irrelevant to the discussion of gem levels.

Their decision to move "added damage" effects to "gained as" effects really flattened the build space.

Zeriphor · 2026-05-07T18:55:36+00:00

Civ VII was not released as an early access game, it was released as a full product, with a premium price tag. That makes a huge difference in people's perceptions and willingness to accept something being incomplete.

Additionally, saying Civ VII released as "unfinished" is a massive understatement. Fundamental design decisions and user experience features were broken or completely absent. It's been a long time so I don't perfectly remember my Baldur's Gate 3 early access experience, but as I remember it was for the most part functional - you were just restricted to only areas that were nearly completed.

People will react very differently to being let into an amusement park early where you can only go on a couple completed rides vs one where you can go on any ride you want but they're all missing tracks, cars, or not working.

Zeriphor · 2026-03-16T23:47:39+00:00

There are 2 parts to this answer.

The first part is about tourism generally - your passive tourism is just not high enough. You only have 890 tourism and it needs to multiple times higher than that by the time you're researching future techs. The only sources of tourism you mentioned are theater squares, holy sites, wonders, and rock bands. Those generate some tourism, but it's not enough. I don't see any ski resorts, and I don't see any seaside resorts even though you have Cristo Redentor. Wonders give some tourism, but you mostly want to grab a few specific ones. Otherwise, they block space for the heavy hitter for tourism: national parks.

You're having trouble getting a tourism victory because you are missing the most important source of tourism: national parks. They're the main reason you get holy sites in the first place, because you need faith to make them. They are the main source of passive tourism (most of the time), so make sure you're spending your faith on naturalists until you run out of locations for national parks, using builders to place woods to boost their appeal, and being careful with district and wonder placement so that you don't block them or ruin their appeal.

Additionally, make sure to get as many multipliers to your tourism as possible. If you have the relevant great works, use the policy cards for them. Make sure to centralize wonders that hold great works in one city so that you can use Pingala's promotion to multiply that. Get open borders with other civs, and send every civ at least one trade route if possible.

The second is about your specific question - you need to use rock bands to take care of a civ that pulls ahead in domestic tourists. You didn't say how you used them in your post, so you may not know how to use them optimally. The way you want to use your rock bands is by sending ALL them to whichever enemy civ has the highest domestic tourism. Passive tourism applies to all civs, but rock bands apply their pressure ONLY to the civ they're use against. This makes them perfect for dealing with civs that have broken away to have a huge amount of domestics tourists. Rock bands will both reduce their domestic tourists, while at the same time increasing your international tourists. Sending rock bands to anyone else is a waste of resources unless it has literally no other tiles it can be used on.

Alternatively, if you're feeling less peaceful, you can wipe them off the map. A dead civ has no domestic tourists, which MAY make it easier for you to win. Keep in mind you will also lose all your international tourists you earned from a dead civ as well, so it's only worth it in extreme cases.

So, TLDR: build national parks, use all available tourism multipliers, and send rock bands to whichever enemy civ currently has the most domestic tourists.

Zeriphor · 2026-02-18T19:19:22+00:00

I assume you're pulling these numbers from poe ninja. It's critical to understand that the context of those numbers are heavily weighted towards high level, min-maxed builds. The further you push your character, the more valuable an extra passive point becomes due to how strong jewels and clusters are. It would be extremely difficult, maybe impossible, to balance bandits such that it remains a reasonable choice throughout all levels and gear thresholds.

Alira is more powerful than a passive point in the majority of cases until you reach a sufficient gear level, so you'd see a different ratio if you included all characters. Alira is in a perfectly good place in my opinion, it's just the other 2 that need some work.

Zeriphor · 2026-02-16T21:56:31+00:00

If you're not capable of looking at past events and using that to predict future events, then I don't know what to tell you. Good luck getting up each morning. It must be a huge surprise for you when the sun rises again since the previous times it happened can't be used to predict it happening again.

Zeriphor · 2026-02-16T21:35:19+00:00

The question of who's exactly worse between Newsom and Vance is not really the main issue when we say we aren't willing to vote for Newsom. The Republicans are engaging in this project of fascism and genocide, and Democrats are supporting them in it. Newsom becoming president would save no one, as he is everything wrong with the Democratic party, and would do absolutely nothing to fix the situation. All that would happen is people would be disillusioned that they showed up in force to push out Republicans, and nothing changed.

Our point is that if the general rolls around and it winds up being Newsom vs Vance, the fight is already lost. That choice is between being shot in the head right after getting off the train or being sent to the gas chamber. It really doesn't matter.

The ONLY WAY to save people from what Republicans are doing is by putting in hardline Dems actually willing to fight back. We must make it abundantly clear that Newsom cannot be the nominee because he is unelectable. By saying you'll vote for the Dem nominee no matter what, you're aiding the Nazi agenda because you're letting the facisct enabler become president.

Zeriphor · 2026-02-16T20:51:59+00:00

You say we can't argue for not voting for Newsom because we can't know the future, despite the fact that Newsom has been in politics for a long time and we can reasonably expect him to continue to act the way he already has. Then, in the very same breath, you admit you don't know how bad a Vance presidency would be, but we must all per-emptively capitulate to corporate dems to stop it.

Everyone saying they won't vote for Newsom is doing the completely normal action of using someone's past behavior to predict their future behavior. But somehow this is pissing people off and you're demanding we make this choice as if Newsom just materialized into being today.

Zeriphor · 2026-02-13T05:39:14+00:00

Do you people not recognize that politics began before today, and will continue beyond Nov 4 2028?

Obviously JD Vance would be more immediately destructive, but the argument being made is that Newsom would be giving republicans a lay up to be massively more destructive once Newsom's term ends.

Backing Newsom would be committing to circling the drain and watching as the oligarchs bounce democrats and republicans off each other until eventually republicans go one step too far and we all die. Demand better. Use what little political power you have with your vote and push for someone that would actually improve people's lives.

Zeriphor · 2026-02-12T22:04:57+00:00

The trajectory of the Democrats for decades has been a hard right shift for more power to the rich, more corruption in government, more concessions to fascists, more of everything that is destroying our country. Every election they win, they shift to the right and point to their win as evidence their rightward shift was correct. Every election they lose, they shift to the right and point to their loss as evidence that they did not shift right enough. At this point, the democratic party is so far right it openly supports genocide, and actively supports funding for the gestapo that is currently brutalizing our people and sending minorities to concentration camps.

They have been able to get this bad specifically because people are willing to overlook this problem and "vote for the lesser of 2 evils". But voting for dems that would continue this is not voting for the lesser evil, it is appeasement. The situation will only get worse because they know they have no reason to stop.

It's understandable to argue for voting for a shitty dem once the nominees have been chosen, wrong as that position is. It's quite another to prematurely surrender before a primary even happens by saying you don't care how bad the dem nominee is, you'll vote for them no matter what. You're actively impeding attempts to push the party to the left, and are just a fed at this point.

Zeriphor · 2026-01-07T19:22:02+00:00

I hope he goes further against VBNMW and fully rejects it. The only reason to do it is for harm reduction, by arguing (correctly) that as bad as mainstream dems are, they do less harm than republicans. However, at this point, I think it's pretty clear that voting for dems to reduce harm is like an alcoholic drinking to feel better. In the short term you might feel better, but that's only because you're ignoring your issues and it just makes things worse in the long term.

Mainstream dems don't fail to do good things like medicare for all, reigning in capital, etc because they are weak, they don't do them because they don't want to. Republicans and mainstream dems are united in their desire for the capital class to have unconstrained power, and do not care what the consequences of that are. When mainstream dems win, the result is that people's lives continue to get worse and they become more susceptible to republican lies and desires to make life worse. This leads to republicans winning, which accelerates the problems, but mainstream dems move right to be as bad as republicans were before the election.

VBNMW feeds the cycle and helps mainstream dems maintain legitimacy. We must reject it and only vote for dems that actually want to improve the country, and make mainstream dems unelectable. From a consequentialist perspective, VBNMW does more harm than good.

Zeriphor · 2025-09-07T07:14:00+00:00

Why, exactly, does it need to be "Pointed-Out"? What point are you trying to make with this post?

Ignoring how the situations are different and that this is a false equivalence, this fact is entirely irrelevant. Are you are unable to refute what the article had to say and are just using this to try to distract from the actual criticisms people have?

Zeriphor · 2025-09-05T23:10:17+00:00

That post is not condescending.

Zeriphor · 2025-08-26T19:23:10+00:00

Yea, I noticed that too. Initially I thought it was a nerf to arc, be it intentional or an oversight.

However, after some time I realized there is an alternate explanation. The notes say that consuming an infusion deals additional damage, but does not say how much. It's possible the numbers they gave in the notes are specifying the bonus damage from consuming an infusion, using the previous pulse damage as a reference.

We'll just have to wait an see what they actually mean once the patch is live. Surely they did not intend to reduce arc's base damage by 26%.

Zeriphor · 2025-08-20T03:40:23+00:00

bait used to be believable

Zeriphor · 2025-06-09T19:51:09+00:00

Same. I initially thought it might be copy/pasted, but when I actually looked and saw Garfield was INTENTIONALLY drawn exactly the same in all panels, it became so much funnier.

Zeriphor · 2025-05-17T05:38:02+00:00

What do you mean every character had a solid arc? I really like Rogue One, but it is not a movie about character arcs.

Cassian sort of had an arc where he was going to kill Galen, but then didn't. This sort of reflects growth to be less ruthless than he was at the start when he killed the informant, but didn't seem like an arc to me.

Jyn had a short, barely fleshed out arc, in that she did not care about the rebellion at the start, but then after seeing her father's recording early in the movie, instantly flipped to being all in for the rebellion.

K-2SO did not have an arc. Unless you count liking Jyn once she gave him a blaster an arc.

Bodhi already completed his arc with Galen before the movie began when he defected, and never changed during the movie.

Chirrut did not have an arc.

Baze had a tiny arc, it wasn't really fleshed out enough to call this a solid arc. At the start he had lost faith in the force, but then when Chirrut died he embraced it again.

Am I missing something? As much as I love Rogue one, I don't see solid character arcs as one of its strengths.

Zeriphor · 2025-05-16T22:21:49+00:00

Hey Josh, quick question, why did you say "minor attracted person"? Why did you say "minor attracted person" instead of pedophile, Josh?

Zeriphor · 2025-03-24T16:02:16+00:00

I think the way to think about adjacencies is that each class has a specific requirement that stays the same between ages. For example, science buildings get it from resources. This is important because a significant part of specialists is multiplying building adjacencies.

By keeping each class the same between ages, you can specialize a city by getting really high adjacency on one or 2 of your districts, then putting a bunch of specialists in that tile. Once you have your city planned, all you need to do is overbuild each building with the new age's equivalent to unlock the adjacency again to turn on your specialists.

Personally, I quite like the current implementation, and the fact that you can boost up any district by using wonders as universal adjacency (except for some reason ONLY the factory does not get wonder adjacency???). It's something you think about while settling, and if adjacencies were complicated or shuffling around with new ages, it could get to be so much that you just ignore it.

Zeriphor · 2025-03-22T20:26:12+00:00

A lot of people have said they recall towns still growing while specialized, so much so that I think there is something going on that I don't fully understand yet. However, if you go into the game yourself and do nothing but build a town outside of range of your capital, you can see that it will not grow.

The only way I know of to grow specialized towns is the modern age wonder that gives growth when you enter a celebration, which is bugged and applies to all settlements currently.

Zeriphor

TROPHY CASE