Firaxis has posted a first glimpse of Civ 7 player stats

[Sagax]

Is it wrong to look at the pie chart of Han/Ming/Qing with Confucius and prematurely conclude that this shows many players playing the "China path" with Confucius, but not potentially finishing their game? If there is disproportionality, does that hint at drop off in Exploration and Modern?

Could me one element of it, but not the whole story. Some players may pick a “historical” pairing as a starting point and then pivot to other civ paths based on gameplay circumstances - we don’t know how much in total that makes. It’s also unclear if that chart counts the combinations in all playthroughs, or only the ones that started in the corresponding era.

 

[sixty4half]

I love Hatshepsut/Egypt and have already done 3 games (one ended early) myself.

Those numbers are wild. 16.7M campaigns?!? But the number of turns played only works out to around 71 turns a game. This is probably caused by people throwing away bad starts

 

[Taefin]

Is it wrong to look at the pie chart of Han/Ming/Qing with Confucius and prematurely conclude that this shows many players playing the "China path" with Confucius, but not potentially finishing their game? If there is disproportionality, does that hint at drop off in Exploration and Modern?

If combined with the average “campaign” length of 72 turns, if every discontinued campaign is including in the pie charts, there would be much more antiquity civs played. More people continued as China path and played through to modern than played Confucius with any other antiquity civ in antiquity though.

I think one could conclude that there was little appetite to try leader/civ mixing in people’s first games.

Also, either Augustus is unpopular (relative to how many Rome starts there are), or people wanted to use Rome to get to an exp or modern civ that matched their leader. But I suspect most players were not thinking about that.

 

[j51]

I love Hatshepsut/Egypt and have already done 3 games (one ended early) myself.

Those numbers are wild. 16.7M campaigns?!? But the number of turns played only works out to around 71 turns a game. This is probably caused by people throwing away bad starts

I know it takes me till around turn 60 or so to throw away bad start lol. That’s civ baby!

 

[Kankan]

I feel sorry for Greece - great 3rd place as most played Civ but no dedicated leader yet. Get on it, Firaxis!

Greece went from having 5 Hellenic leaders in Civ 6 to none at all in Civ 7! I won’t be surprised to see Alexander back however but if they wanted to go for a surprising one they’d go with Constantine XI

 

[Kankan]

In general however I think the stats do tell a story
Players overall prefer playing more historical lines in general.

 

[Sagax]

Also, either Augustus is unpopular (relative to how many Rome starts there are), or people wanted to use Rome to get to an exp or modern civ that matched their leader. But I suspect most players were not thinking about that.

I see the latter as a valid explanation. Rome has the highest number of future civ unlocks among Antiquity civs, and is the most logical starting civ for pretty much every Western leader - and we have plenty of them in the base roster.

 

[Wabnosa]

I did a Confucius Maurya run, the map was like Afghanistan. Rough desert mountains, blocked the passes. I made a point to limit city sprawl and growth a bit. It was peaceful, and fun. Until a huge flock of general less Meji swarmed all over the continent right toward the end of antiquity. Settling allover and ruining Confucius' peace. The way she goes.

 

[Disgustipated]

Confucius to be the most played leader.

Really? when I won with him a couple days ago, the Steam achievement still had the sparkly thingy because less than 10% of people had this achievement. It was around 5% 2 days ago.

 

[Sagax]

Really? when I won with him a couple days ago, the Steam achievement still had the sparkly thingy because less than 10% of people had this achievement. It was around 5% 2 days ago.

5% may seem like very little… until you realize that the achievement of someone like Ibn Battuta was at 0.6% at the time.

Here are the current global leader achievements, and Confucius is comfortably at the top:

 

[marius_kaparius]

I'm surprised at the 72-turn average; I haven't restarted any. Both my games have gone straight through to the end. It may be different if I had started on Deity but this time I'm making my way up the difficulty track.

 

[sixty4half]

If the average game goes 350 turns that's 4 of 5 games being restarted on T1.

 

[Krajzen]

Rome / Han / Egypt make sense as the most played. The quintessential expansionist civ, the quintessential chinese civ and the quintessential builder civ.

I like how this comment implies that "Chinese" is a playstyle and a trait

The eternal trilemma in 4x games: to play wide and be an expansionist, to play tall and be a builder, or to be Chinese

 

[Leyrann]

5% may seem like very little… until you realize that the achievement of someone like Ibn Battuta was at 0.6% at the time.

Here are the current global leader achievements, and Confucius is comfortably at the top:
View attachment 720798

Interesting that Tubman is at the very bottom, only beating out alternate personas.

 

[Krajzen]

I feel sorry for Greece - great 3rd place as most played Civ but no dedicated leader yet. Get on it, Firaxis!

Maybe devs have the same problem we do and are stuck arguing who should be an ancient Greek leader out of like two hundred fantastic personalities one can choose from... Alexander, Athenian democratic politicians, Themistocles, Spartans, Thebes, Hellenic dynasties, tyrants, queens, philosophers (Plato or Aristotle?), scholars, Archimedes, dramaturgists, Sappho flirting with female leaders, Homer, Xenophon, Alcibiades (the most entertaining traitor in history), Diogenes of Sinop with a lamp "seeking a man" and masturbating uncensored on a diplomacy screen - I think we need a separate game just for the ancient Greek leaders.

 

[Gedemon]

I'm surprised at the 72-turn average; I haven't restarted any. Both my games have gone straight through to the end. It may be different if I had started on Deity but this time I'm making my way up the difficulty track.

1 launch a game, reveal map.
2 edit a single value in the mapscript
3 goto 1

they should have told me before about the stats

 

[Noble Zarkon]

they should have told me before about the stats

We really need to see the median number of turns played!

 

[sixty4half]

Interesting that Tubman is at the very bottom, only beating out alternate perpersonas

She is really strong when you can antagonize the AI into attacking you. Capable of Dominaton Vic in Antiquity age if you go Terra Incognito map.

 

[reddishrecue]

What? Maya isn't even on the top chosen? I was way off... I thought most multiplayer people picked maya often.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

On a purely mechanical level I think it makes some sort of sense that she and Machiavelli are at the bottom. They're Leaders whose strength depends on leveraging the new diplomacy system to your advantage, while also being lesser known.

What is rather surprising to me is that Xerxes the Achaemenid (his expensive add-on persona!) has a higher percentage than Lafayette and many other base game Leaders! Trumping more obscure picks like Jose Rizal? Fine, that makes enough sense. But Lafayette? One of the most approachable Leaders mechanically, and a historical figure remembered as a hero in one of the game's biggest markets? Someone with strong simming and war bonuses? Why is he down there?

I guess I can't take these statistics all too seriously, seeing as this is a relatively small sample size compared to what it will be in the future. Still, I find myself shocked at Lafayette's placement and saddend (though not surprised) by the placement of the native Leaders.

...who, in all fairness, I haven't even started a game as yet, but that's because I'm not interested in them mechanically. I want to get to the more fun looking ones first