Firaxis has posted a first glimpse of Civ 7 player stats

[sixty4half]

Part of the reason Xerxes the Achaemenid is so high up is because he was part of a paid-for package. Those who paid for it want to use what came for it. He's also really cool.

 

[Sagax]

Part of the reason Xerxes the Achaemenid is so high up is because he was part of a paid-for package. Those who paid for it want to use what came for it. He's also really cool.

The three leaders at the bottom are also part of paid-for packages, yet there they are.

Xerxes is just that cool, I guess. And maybe he caters to a few people with Gilgabro withdrawal.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Xerxes is just that cool, I guess. And maybe he caters to a few people with Gilgabro withdrawal.

“A big, buff, and bearded Middle Eastern man?”

The player stares longingly at their framed photo of Gilgamesh.

“Eh, close enough.”

 

[Gori the Grey]

. . . love the one you're with.

 

[Krajzen]

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

This doesn't surprise me that much - I have always defended her from obvious racists and sexists (hurr we suddenly care about "the appropriate leaders" and give her video 25% dislike ratio and nasty jokes when talking about a black woman, but not when dealing with Ibn Battuta, Machiavelli etc who get universal acclaim) but for some unclear reason I have never felt some personal excitement for her the way I feel about e.g. Ada Lovelace.

 

[AD1730]

This doesn't surprise me that much - I have always defended her from obvious racists and sexists (hurr we suddenly care about "the appropriate leaders" and give her video 25% dislike ratio and nasty jokes when talking about a black woman, but not when dealing with Ibn Battuta, Machiavelli etc who get universal acclaim) but for some unclear reason I have never felt some personal excitement for her the way I feel about e.g. Ada Lovelace.

For me, I see Tubman as 1000x more appropriate than Lovelace. It's not even close in my opinion. Have no problem at all with Tubman (though I would have chose Frederick Douglass personally), but have major issues with Lovelace's inclusion.

 

[Siptah]

This doesn't surprise me that much - I have always defended her from obvious racists and sexists (hurr we suddenly care about "the appropriate leaders" and give her video 25% dislike ratio and nasty jokes when talking about a black woman, but not when dealing with Ibn Battuta, Machiavelli etc who get universal acclaim) but for some unclear reason I have never felt some personal excitement for her the way I feel about e.g. Ada Lovelace.

I haven‘t played her yet, but mainly because I don‘t find her ability that interesting for me. And she somehow appears in every game I’ve played so far…

 

[moysturfurmer]

Tubman’s low player count could also be because:

A: for a first game players might be inclined to go with a leader that corresponds to a civ they mean to play in that run, and America enthusiasts would have Franklin splitting the vote.

B: the most impressive part of her unique abilities (+5 War support if declared on) is reactive, not proactive. And the bonuses to espionage don’t seem like a big draw for someone’s first game.

 

[Methos]

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

I think it's because of her abilities. She looks very interesting, but in order to properly player her you first need to have a good grasp of the influence system. I'm looking forward to playing her, but I'll wait until I'm a lot more comfortable with the game before doing so.

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing this could be why she isn't higher ranked at the moment. Possibly down the line she'll rise up in the rankings?

 

[Cymsdale]

My first win was with Tubman. I figured her ability was simple enough to exploit (just spam espionage on cooldown), and I ended up being pleasantly surprised by how powerful the +5 war support ended up being.

 

[NowhereMan80]

Interesting that one of their main arguments for changing how the game is played was a low % of people didn’t finish games (sorry, “Campaigns”), and they didn’t include that here.

 

[ydejin]

Interesting that one of their main arguments for changing how the game is played was a low % of people didn’t finish games (sorry, “Campaigns”), and they didn’t include that here.

It’s way, way too early to have any meaningful data on how many people have finished games they started, particularly for the group of people (which is the vast majority of normal players) who they were concerned about.

I have a total of 40 hours in. Those are pathetic numbers for a CivFanatics reader, but for a typical game buyer, you really think they’ve managed to put in 40 hours since the game was released? It’s only the hardcore who put in those kind of hours.

In those 40 hours I’ve managed to finish one game. I started a Jose Rizal game on all standard settings with Greece > Hawaii and ended up so far ahead of the AI by the Modern Age, I restarted. I played a second game with Friedrich Oblique, Rome > Spain > Prussia. I really wanted to finish a game, so I went with Tiny Map, Online Speed, Viceroy and finished a full game yesterday.

So 40 hours, 1 online-speed game finished, 2/3rds of a standard game finished. That’s with having played Civ games since Civ1 watched a huge amount of Civ7 videos ahead of time and knowing how the game works. The normies are not going to know how the game works (and the UI isn’t doing them many favors) and they sure don’t have 40 hours of game play in one week. If they’re lucky they’re somewhere in the Exploration Age in their first game. If they’re have a young kids at home or a busy job they’re probably still in the Ancient Age.

 

[NowhereMan80]

It’s way, way too early to have any meaningful data on how many people have finished games they started, particularly for the group of people (which is the vast majority of normal players) who they were concerned about.

I have a total of 40 hours in. Those are pathetic numbers for a CivFanatics reader, but for a typical game buyer, you really think they’ve managed to put in 40 hours since the game was released? It’s only the hardcore who put in those kind of hours.

In those 40 hours I’ve managed to finish one game. I started a Jose Rizal game on all standard settings with Greece > Hawaii and ended up so far ahead of the AI by the Modern Age, I restarted. I played a second game with Friedrich Oblique, Rome > Spain > Prussia. I really wanted to finish a game, so I went with Tiny Map, Online Speed, Viceroy and finished a full game yesterday.

So 40 hours, 1 online-speed game finished, 2/3rds of a standard game finished. That’s with having played Civ games since Civ1 watched a huge amount of Civ7 videos ahead of time and knowing how the game works. The normies are not going to know how the game works (and the UI isn’t doing them many favors) and they sure don’t have 40 hours of game play in one week. If they’re lucky they’re somewhere in the Exploration Age in their first game. If they’re have a young kids at home or a busy job they’re probably still in the Ancient Age.

The #'s they posted aren't meaningful, and they were the ones that pointed out game completion rate as an important factor in their changes to the game. I'd say when it comes to this game it's the only stat that means anything.

 

[ydejin]

The #'s they posted aren't meaningful, and they were the ones that pointed out game completion rate as an important factor in their changes to the game. I'd say when it comes to this game it's the only stat that means anything.

It’s obviously meant as a “fun” marketing post from 2K/Firaxis to increase engagement. It’s not a Game Developers Conference analysis. Not sure why you’re expecting differently.

 

[Pokarnor]

A: for a first game players might be inclined to go with a leader that corresponds to a civ they mean to play in that run, and America enthusiasts would have Franklin splitting the vote.

Franklin is way up near the top behind only Confucius, so it's not so much splitting the vote as dominating it. I think this is the correct answer though, Americans (and people wanting to play an America themed campaign) are probably much more interested in Franklin.

 

[ThERat]

I would think, with the complete decoupling of civilizations and leaders and all of them turning into something interchangeable, players make choices based mostly on their abilities and bonuses etc. Not really about immersion any longer as that seems poison to Firaxis.

 

[StargazingDog]

My first game was Hatsheput leading Egypt, and second was Augustus with Rome, so I added to those top stats!

Third game I am Machiavelli.

It’s obviously meant as a “fun” marketing post from 2K/Firaxis to increase engagement. It’s not a Game Developers Conference analysis. Not sure why you’re expecting differently.

Check his post history and you will understand.

I have a total of 40 hours in. Those are pathetic numbers for a CivFanatics reader, but for a typical game buyer, you really think they’ve managed to put in 40 hours since the game was released? It’s only the hardcore who put in those kind of hours.

I just checked and I have 60 hours. I have completed two games and am just hitting modern in my third game. In Civ 5/6, it was agonizing when my games would push 12 hours to finish. In Civ 7, I don't even notice the amount of time. It's so engaging the entire time.

 

[NowhereMan80]

It’s obviously meant as a “fun” marketing post from 2K/Firaxis to increase engagement. It’s not a Game Developers Conference analysis. Not sure why you’re expecting differently.

I apologize for taking things seriously. And thanks for agreeing with me that it meant nothing.

 

[Leyrann]

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

Multiplayer is a tiny part of the total playerbase. I would be surprised if even 3% of the games played are multiplayer. And if we talk about playing-to-win multiplayer instead of just having fun with friends, I would be surprised if that's even 0.5% of games.

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.

Machiavelli isn't exactly lesser known...

For me, the only leaders I hadn't heard of before their Civ VII announcement are Amina, Harriet Tubman, Ibn Battuta, Jose Rizal, Tecumseh and maybe Lafayette - not sure if I'd heard of him previously. Machiavelli was firmly in the well-known category for me, ahead of people like Ashoka (only knew of him through previous Civ games), Himiko, Trung Trac, etc.

 

[Black Gate]

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

It's also very interesting when you look at games that have an achievement that could be re-written as "open the game and hit start" and it'll be at 80% or so. If an achievement requires you to beat the first, very simple level, that sometimes drops to 65%. People underestimate the number of users that buy a game on sale and just never get around to playing it, and since these stats include everyone that owns the game, some achievements have really really low clearance numbers.