Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

No it didn't. Do you not remember the Leaders pass in Civ VI? Leaders were already being sold on their own.

That to me isn't what I think of when someone says "decoupling leaders from civs".
Those leaders in the Leaders pass were being sold, or given out for free, for previously released civs. Ludwig II was still only playable with Germany. Ada Lovelace on the other hand was released alongside Great Britain, but is still decoupled because she doesn't have to lead Great Britian, despite being heavily associated with them.

 

[Gori the Grey]

They could do it with less work since a civ 6 civ is less unique than a civ 7 civ.

I conceded as much in an edit that I added to the post that preceded the one you cite.

However much work they put into civlets, the player only plays with them for a third of the game, and so that will impact players' assessment of how much value a "civ" in each game is adding to his or her game-play experience. That will be the bottom line for most players and that will in turn mean that most players will size up the value of a 7 "civ" as about 1/3 the value of a 6-and-earlier "civ."

For some who have posted here, the extra work that the designers put in to 7's civlets was wasted effort--in fact, positively counter-productive. They find that, since the AI are also getting bonuses in each of the three ages, everything evens out and it is as though, effectively speaking, nobody really has any bonuses to speak of. A sad irony, given that I believe as you do: that the designers really knocked themselves out to put a lot of care into their design of the civlets.

 

[Kwami]

They now make an entity that plays for 1/3 of the game, but still call it a "Civ."

It's an entity that requires more work and is more complete than a "Civ" in V or VI, though.

EDIT: I didn't see the latest posts, so mine is redundant. It's still a valid point, though. And despite the high inflation of the last few years, the price for a civ remains the same as it was for VI. That matters, too.

 

[Kev1916]

Why are you comparing a full expansion to DLC which isn't a full expansion?

Civ VI New Frontiers Pass
$40 - 8 Civs, 9 Leaders

Civ VII Crossroads of the World
$30 - 4 Civs, 2 Leaders, 4 Natural Wonders

Do you guys really think they needed to "decouple" Civilizations & Leaders and create new mechanics like Ages & Civ-switching to charge more for less content?

You don't think they could've just charged $30 for 4 Civs with a leader attached to each one if they wanted to? They could have. Blaming the game for bad DLC pricing is ridiculous.

lol

 

[Gori the Grey]

And despite the high inflation of the last few years, the price for a civ remains the same as it was for VI. That matters, too.

I think the following point matters most:

For some who have posted here, the extra work that the designers put in to 7's civlets was wasted effort--in fact, positively counter-productive. They find that, since the AI are also getting bonuses in each of the three ages, everything evens out and it is as though, effectively speaking, nobody really has any bonuses to speak of. A sad irony, given that I believe as you do: that the designers really knocked themselves out to put a lot of care into their design of the civlets.

The designers were trying to do various things with ages and civ-switching (model actual history in "layers," e.g.) but one thing they were responding to was a wish on the part of players that games would be "competitive" all through (i.e. not reach a stage where the player is just tediously clicking "next turn" because the game is essentially won). I think it is only as a result of their trying what they did that some players have come to realize that the fun of a uniques in the previous games is planning the entire game relative to them. So (from 5, which is what I play): sure Monty is going to spam Jaguar Warriors early game, but if I can survive that early rush, I'll eventually reach my Camel Archers, and then we'll see who's boss). Before 7's design, people just thought that was the way you strategized a Civ game: make the most of your uniques in the era that they come, and tread water during the times that your opponents are in their ascendency.

For big Civ fans once you've played some number of games, you learn the basic arc of an entire game, and you play each smaller section of the game against that arc. In my most recent game, I'm going for a culture victory. I got a religion and I picked the belief that makes Hermitage +5 tourism. I knew full well I wouldn't see any advantage from that until late game (I took note; I finally got the Hermitage built on turn 189). I made the prediction that 5 extra tourism late game would be of more advantage to me than any of the other beliefs, that would have kicked in right away from turn 60 or whatever it was when I got the religion). Anyway, you can only play that way once you have enough experience with how games in general tend to play out that you can do such long-term cost-benefit analyses. Your civ and other civs only thriving in one portion of the game (in earlier iterations) was one such long-term-strategizing that players actually didn't mind.

As a more general matter, the aspects of 7 that are not working for many players are giving me, at least, a lot more clear and precise sense of what it was we did enjoy in the games all along. Sometimes you can't see something sharply until you have an alternative with which to contrast it.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think the following point matters most:



The designers were trying to do various things with ages and civ-switching (model actual history in "layers," e.g.) but one thing they were responding to was a wish on the part of players that games would be "competitive" all through (i.e. not reach a stage where the player is just tediously clicking "next turn" because the game is essentially won). I think it is only as a result of their trying that that some players have come to realize that the fun of a uniques in the previous games is planning the entire game relative to them. So (from 5, which is what I play): sure Monty is going to spam Jaguar Warriors early game, but if I can survive that early rush, I'll eventually reach my Camel Archers, and then we'll see who's boss). Before 7's design, people just thought that was the way you strategized a Civ game: make the most of your uniques in the era that they come, and tread water during the times that your opponents are in their ascendency.

For big Civ fans once you've played some number of games, you learn the basic arc of an entire game, and you play each smaller section of the game against that arc. In my most recent game, I'm going for a culture victory. I got a religion and I picked the belief that makes Hermitage +5 tourism. I knew full well I wouldn't see any advantage from that until late game (I took note; I finally got the Hermitage built on turn 189). I made the prediction that 5 extra tourism late game would be of more advantage to me than any of the other beliefs, that would have kicked in right away from turn 60 or whatever it was when I got the religion). Anyway, you can only play that way once you have enough experience with how games in general tend to play out that you can do such long-term cost-benefit analyses. Your civ and other civs only thriving in one portion of the game (in earlier iterations) was one such long-term-strategizing that players actually didn't mind.

Well I think that could be restored by having civs with no uniques outside of their native age and having semi-generic bonuses in other ages. That would probably have to be a game mode though.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Well I think that could be restored by having civs with no uniques outside of their native age and having semi-generic bonuses in other ages. That would probably have to be a game mode though.

Funny, in another thread I proposed pretty much exactly that as the quickest way for Firaxis to implement a "Classic" mode.

I have floated the following before as what I think would be the fastest way to get something like a Classic mode.

You can pick any of the present civlets, from any age, as your civ for the entire game. As part of a game set-up, you designate it. All through the game, settlement names are drawn from the list associated with that civlet.

In game, the leader appears as "[Leader] of the [Your Civ Here] People"--all through the game. "Ben Franklin of the American People" right from antiquity.

The developers design a generic civlet for each of the three ages. Some set of advantages, basically on a par with what a present civlet gets.

In the age where the civ presently exists, you get the bonuses associated with your civ. In the other ages, you the generic bonuses.

All my plan requires is for the developers to design three generic civs, one for each age, and to change the in-game display of the leadername to always also include the civ name, as above.

Allow, as they already do, for crises to be turned off.

Maybe your opponents could also appear in game as having a consistent civ-name even if they are in fact cobbled together out of three civlets. They can be off getting whatever advantages they get, but you don't have to be annoyed by a constantly-changing name.

(Not the best, mind you, just the quickest way to get in place something approaching "classic" mode.)

 

[Core Imposter]

To accommodate the excellent coinage of "civlet" I hereby amend my earlier statement about Civ7, retracting " all hat no cattle" to a more congruous "all hat no hog".

 

[Gori the Grey]

To accommodate the excellent coinage of "civlet" I hereby amend my earlier statement about Civ7, retracting " all hat no cattle" to a more congruous "all hat no hog".

See, y'all! It's going to catch on. I'm going to make "civlet" happen.

 

[uppi]

I conceded as much in an edit that I added to the post that preceded the one you cite.

However much work they put into civlets, the player only plays with them for a third of the game, and so that will impact players' assessment of how much value a "civ" in each game is adding to his or her game-play experience. That will be the bottom line for most players and that will in turn mean that most players will size up the value of a 7 "civ" as about 1/3 the value of a 6-and-earlier "civ."

For some who have posted here, the extra work that the designers put in to 7's civlets was wasted effort--in fact, positively counter-productive. They find that, since the AI are also getting bonuses in each of the three ages, everything evens out and it is as though, effectively speaking, nobody really has any bonuses to speak of. A sad irony, given that I believe as you do: that the designers really knocked themselves out to put a lot of care into their design of the civlets.

I disagree for me personally. Yes, a new civ lasts for only 1/3 of the game, but I also pick three civs for a game. Which means when I am playing the same amount of games, I'll play the same civ in three times as many games as if I picked only a single civ for the entire game. So I end up playing the same civ the same amount of time as if they were lasting the entire game. In Civ 6, I would often end up playing a new civ once and then not touching it for a long time. In Civ 7, I end up picking them in multiple games. The different combinations of leaders and civs also give more reasons to replay them. Assyrians into Mongols as Genghis Khan feels like a very different game than Assyrians into Abbasids as Frederick, Baroque.

 

[tman2000]

This is sounding like the argument against "millions of console players" asking where they are.

You're blaming a "small population of hyperactive users" for downvoting and overwhelming the millions of haters posts. Which doesn't even make sense because negative posts and comments are upvoted all the time on there? You should have a look.

None of these points invalidate my argument that there is a small population of very active users who consistently downvote everything negative. What I'm saying makes perfect sense. You can't just say, "That makes no sense," as an argument with no backing against a perfectly cogent and reasonable, easily observed interpretation of a phenomenon.

Also, my contention is nothing like the console players argument. It's as if you're just saying, "Well your argument is bad too."

 

[Gori the Grey]

I disagree for me personally. Yes, a new civ lasts for only 1/3 of the game, but I also pick three civs for a game. Which means when I am playing the same amount of games, I'll play the same civ in three times as many games as if I picked only a single civ for the entire game. So I end up playing the same civ the same amount of time as if they were lasting the entire game. In Civ 6, I would often end up playing a new civ once and then not touching it for a long time. In Civ 7, I end up picking them in multiple games. The different combinations of leaders and civs also give more reasons to replay them. Assyrians into Mongols as Genghis Khan feels like a very different game than Assyrians into Abbasids as Frederick, Baroque.

That's fine. This (as a lot of things) comes down to individual players' play-styles.

I let the game assign me my civ. (I keep standard size, and speed, and designate pangaea if I'm going for domination, but make everything else random). For me, the fun of a Civ game is to see that first roll and say "ok, what can I do with [Civ X] in [terrain Y]?" And then, as the game develops a little bit, "ok, what am I going to do with [Civ Z] and [Civ W] as my nearest neighbors?" and "is it worth reaching out to claim [Natural Wonder V] for my initial (or another, evolving) strategy?"

In 15 years of playing Civ 5, I've never once played a civ of my own choosing.

(Does 7 let you turn your second and third civlet selection over to RNG (within the options that you qualify for)?). (I guess one could just use an online random number generator.)

 

[tman2000]

50/50 is not really a good rating to be honest.

Exactly. "This meat is likely to cause food poisoning in 50% of consumers."

"Guys, 50% of people who ate this didn't even get sick, so you can't say it's bad meat."

 

[Krikkit1]

That's fine. This (as a lot of things) comes down to individual players' play-styles.

I let the game assign me my civ. (I keep standard size, and speed, and designate pangaea if I'm going for domination, but make everything else random). For me, the fun of a Civ game is to see that first roll and say "ok, what can I do with [Civ X] in [terrain Y]?" And then, as the game develops a little bit, "ok, what am I going to do with [Civ Z] and [Civ W] as my nearest neighbors?" and "is it worth reaching out to claim [Natural Wonder V] for my initial (or another, evolving) strategy?"

In 15 years of playing Civ 5, I've never once played a civ of my own choosing.

(Does 7 let you turn your second and third civlet selection over to RNG (within the options that you qualify for)?). (I guess one could just use an online random number generator.)

Would be a really fun option (particularly if true random among unlocked, not leader’s preference)

 

[uppi]

That's fine. This (as a lot of things) comes down to individual players' play-styles.

I let the game assign me my civ. (I keep standard size, and speed, and designate pangaea if I'm going for domination, but make everything else random). For me, the fun of a Civ game is to see that first roll and say "ok, what can I do with [Civ X] in [terrain Y]?" And then, as the game develops a little bit, "ok, what am I going to do with [Civ Z] and [Civ W] as my nearest neighbors?" and "is it worth reaching out to claim [Natural Wonder V] for my initial (or another, evolving) strategy?"

In 15 years of playing Civ 5, I've never once played a civ of my own choosing.

(Does 7 let you turn your second and third civlet selection over to RNG (within the options that you qualify for)?). (I guess one could just use an online random number generator.)

I don't think it does, but as you said, you could use a RNG. Might actually be a fun idea, to roll on the age transition for the next civ pick (with all civs unlocked for extra mayhem). You wold end the age, not knowing what exactly you were going to to in the next.

But my usual playstyle is going into a game with a plan what I want to do, which often already involves the civs I want to pick.

 

[Siptah]

I‘ve played many games with random civ, random leader, and random 2nd and 3rd civ in civ 7. But I use an external (true) randomizer for that (random.org). It can be quite fun to have a strong antiquity, and an obvious choice for continuation, but rolling something completely different.

 

[aieeegrunt]

None of these points invalidate my argument that there is a small population of very active users who consistently downvote everything negative. What I'm saying makes perfect sense. You can't just say, "That makes no sense," as an argument with no backing against a perfectly cogent and reasonable, easily observed interpretation of a phenomenon.

Also, my contention is nothing like the console players argument. It's as if you're just saying, "Well your argument is bad too."

It’s almost like it’s their job or something.

Regardless of the intent, the fact is that compared to former games, Civ7’s civlets are a massive rip off

You have 9 civs for 40 dollars vs the equivelant of one and a third civs for 30. Even in the shrinkflated corporate enshittification timeline we live in, that’s a fracking joke.

What’s even worse is that I fully expect them slice up former Civs in such a way that I have to buy several DLC’s to assemble my Civ

So not only do I need Illyria, Magyars and Hungary instead of just Hungary, I’ll probably have to buy three expansions to get it.

 

[Kwami]

Exactly. "This meat is likely to cause food poisoning in 50% of consumers."

"Guys, 50% of people who ate this didn't even get sick, so you can't say it's bad meat."

That's fine, but I brought up the 50/50 split as a counter to the supposed "near universal" dislike of the game. In no way is 50/50 "near universal".

 

[King Flevance]

All of the comparisons to Civ:BE's launch made me fire it up again and have a go at it. (I have always enjoyed it and still hope for a sequel or even just another expansion.) I have to say a lot of Civ 7's core can be found in BERT's DNA. Like if BERT and Humankind Had a baby and they named it after BERT's mom/dad. (It's no wonder I see so much potential in the core game so much) Granted Civ:BE has an expansion and a lifecycle to its credit but it feels like a much more enjoyable and even more intricate experience. I need to get around to checking out the codex mod.

 

[Siddorm]

My prediction for the Civ 7 peak player count for September is 11.95k. I think that the release of the second mini-collection will give a small boost to player numbers.