Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Verified_Confection_Being]

The bigger than normal drop might speak to people taking a break from the current game because they want to wait for the patch, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a bigger bump. Test will be if it can finally stem the player drop. I still don't see anything that fundamentally widens the audience or makes the game more replayable in this patch, except for the larger maps could open in to more people that were switched off before.

 

[user746383]

I believe next weeks patch will bring more people back to Civ7, I know of at least one person who has said they will return next week. As to how many we can only but guess and hope it will be many.

I hope so, but we've seen the same prediction every patch and no luck so far.

 

[0urBall]

Ages/Eras have been a thing in Civ since CivIII, the issue with CivVII seems to be the jarring nature of the transition as opposed to previous versions. Thesee have to be smoothed out to make the gameplay more enjoyable, and the easiest thing I can see to do that is to leave units where they were from the previous turn the player played
Civ switching will probably be fine, in the end. But I think it will take a lot of Civs to be added for it to be worth players while/give enough options to make the switching not seem noticeable/weird/ahistoric. I'm not sure what the ultimate total number of Civs/Leaders planned is, but it might take many years of DLCs to get there, unfortunately

 

[queenpea]

Ages/Eras have been a thing in Civ since CivIII, the issue with CivVII seems to be the jarring nature of the transition as opposed to previous versions. Thesee have to be smoothed out to make the gameplay more enjoyable, and the easiest thing I can see to do that is to leave units where they were from the previous turn the player played
Civ switching will probably be fine, in the end. But I think it will take a lot of Civs to be added for it to be worth players while/give enough options to make the switching not seem noticeable/weird/ahistoric. I'm not sure what the ultimate total number of Civs/Leaders planned is, but it might take many years of DLCs to get there, unfortunately

Ages have never been this consequential, and the mechanic is entirely new for VII. I don’t think it’s very useful to compare ages in VII to what we have seen previously.

I think we will mainly receive new civilizations in DLC, which does not address the experience players have in the base game with Civ switching. Hopefully we receive some free updates that come with free civs.

 

[UWHabs]

Ages have never been this consequential, and the mechanic is entirely new for VII. I don’t think it’s very useful to compare ages in VII to what we have seen previously.

I think we will mainly receive new civilizations in DLC, which does not address the experience players have in the base game with Civ switching. Hopefully we receive some free updates that come with free civs.

The closest was obviously in 6, where you were fighting for era score, and had some specific bonuses or penalties to deal with in each game era. Before that, eras were more or less cosmetic, other than some very mild influence to gameplay mechanics (ie. the casus belli to declare war on someone way behind your era).

I don't think the eras will really feel smooth until we're at at least 15 civs per era, and it will probably take 20 per era to actually get a good cover over the globe, where each region has one or two paths in each era that you can follow naturally.

 

[queenpea]

The closest was obviously in 6, where you were fighting for era score, and had some specific bonuses or penalties to deal with in each game era. Before that, eras were more or less cosmetic, other than some very mild influence to gameplay mechanics (ie. the casus belli to declare war on someone way behind your era).

I don't think the eras will really feel smooth until we're at at least 15 civs per era, and it will probably take 20 per era to actually get a good cover over the globe, where each region has one or two paths in each era that you can follow naturally.

Yes, but even the closest comparison is still almost completely untethered to ages in VII.

45 civs were at one point rumored for launch with VII. That number was thrown around a lot here on the forums—15 per Age. I think that would have been a much better starting position. To get to 20, though, we are going to be waiting on a lot of expensive DLC, and I don’t think that’s a great solution.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I think people are really underestimating the number of Civs that would be required to get the smoothness people switched off by this game want.

Previous civs launched with 18 Civs, and to get a direct equivalent of that we'd need 54 in Civ VII. You might get away with a little bit less like Byzantium is a good successor to both Rome and Greece.

However, that's just to get it to a point where there is some semblance of playability for the players that are peeved. For the mechanic to add value to those players, you would need >1 believable successor option per age, or what's the point in the mechanic of choosing?

I don't think we've going to be in a position where the roster feels like it's at a good starting baseline until we have 60+ Civs conservatively

 

[stealth_nsk]

45 civs were at one point rumored for launch with VII. That number was thrown around a lot here on the forums—15 per Age. I think that would have been a much better starting position. To get to 20, though, we are going to be waiting on a lot of expensive DLC, and I don’t think that’s a great solution.

One full expansion will bring us close to 20 per age (probably 18-19), unless it will be focused on 4th age, in which case we'll need 2 expansions to reach this number.

So, smaller DLCs likely will not be needed, although we'll likely get them anyway, increasing this number even further.

 

[queenpea]

One full expansion will bring us close to 20 per age (probably 18-19), unless it will be focused on 4th age, in which case we'll need 2 expansions to reach this number.

So, smaller DLCs likely will not be needed, although we'll likely get them anyway, increasing this number even further.

That would be generous! I’m not so sure the EP’s will be that full of civs. For example, GS gave us 8 plus an additional leader.

Let’s be optimistic and say that a Civ VII EP could give us 9 civs plus a number of leaders. This would then be watered down to 3 per Age.

Obviously we don’t know anything yet, but that’s where my head is when thinking about DLC.

 

[GeneralZift]

It's ye same story of olde..... Civ release.... Wait 40 years .... Buy Super Golden Platinum History Edition for 2 cents on sale.... Enjoy

 

[Kyriakos]

If you are allowed to keep playing as the same civ, it may (or may not, we will see) be a first step to getting some people back. Of course it would also imply that the age mechanism is exposed as well, as it is likely impossible to spend the time/effort/money to make each age largely distinct for each civ.
Imo, instead of each civ branching to fully compatible civs (which for many is simply impossible), an idea would be to have each civ include its later-era civs, significantly diminishing the amount you have to create. One might ask: what is the point of having a civ include (eg be locked in with) future iterations, instead of just playing as the same civ always? The point, I fear, is that the latter is what apparently the majority of people want, but as a change it may be too drastic.

 

[UWHabs]

That would be generous! I’m not so sure the EP’s will be that full of civs. For example, GS gave us 8 plus an additional leader.

Let’s be optimistic and say that a Civ VII EP could give us 9 civs plus a number of leaders. This would then be watered down to 3 per Age.

Obviously we don’t know anything yet, but that’s where my head is when thinking about DLC.

The way the ages go, we get ~50% more civs than previous versions. we had 31 at launch, vs 20ish in previous iterations. I would expect an expansion to be 12-15 civs, and 6-8 leaders.

Once we get through the founders packs, we'll be at 13 per age. I'd expect a scatter of one-off civs in DLC over the next year or so to bring us up to maybe 15 per age, and then the first XP should get us to the 18-20 range.

 

[AD1730]

The way the ages go, we get ~50% more civs than previous versions. we had 31 at launch, vs 20ish in previous iterations. I would expect an expansion to be 12-15 civs, and 6-8 leaders.

Once we get through the founders packs, we'll be at 13 per age. I'd expect a scatter of one-off civs in DLC over the next year or so to bring us up to maybe 15 per age, and then the first XP should get us to the 18-20 range.

50% more civs, but each civ is 33% of a civ... Or at least that's how a significant portion of the fans see it.

 

[queenpea]

The way the ages go, we get ~50% more civs than previous versions. we had 31 at launch, vs 20ish in previous iterations. I would expect an expansion to be 12-15 civs, and 6-8 leaders.

Once we get through the founders packs, we'll be at 13 per age. I'd expect a scatter of one-off civs in DLC over the next year or so to bring us up to maybe 15 per age, and then the first XP should get us to the 18-20 range.

Yes, I think an EP plus an unknown number of smaller civ packs will land us near 20 choices per age.

The DLC packs we have received so far have delivered four civs priced at $30, so I remain skeptical that we will receive a large dump of civilizations all at once with a DLC within the typical price range (less than US $60).

 

[Aquila SPQR]

If you are allowed to keep playing as the same civ, it may (or may not, we will see) be a first step to getting some people back

It's the only thing that would convince me to maybe try Civ VII if it's on some huge sale. Ugly megacities is another thing preventing me from tring Civ VII, but it's not as repulsive as mandatory civ changing.

 

[stealth_nsk]

That would be generous! I’m not so sure the EP’s will be that full of civs. For example, GS gave us 8 plus an additional leader.

Let’s be optimistic and say that a Civ VII EP could give us 9 civs plus a number of leaders. This would then be watered down to 3 per Age.

Obviously we don’t know anything yet, but that’s where my head is when thinking about DLC.

Civ6 had 19 civs on release, so expansion added almost half this number. Civ7 had 30 civs on release (will not dive into how different the definition of civ is), so I expect expansion without 4th age to have12-15 civs, or 4-5 civs per age. We'll have 13 per age this September. So in total, maybe I'm a bit optimistic with 18-19, but 17-18 looks pretty realistic number.

 

[queenpea]

Civ6 had 19 civs on release, so expansion added almost half this number. Civ7 had 30 civs on release (will not dive into how different the definition of civ is), so I expect expansion without 4th age to have12-15 civs, or 4-5 civs per age. We'll have 13 per age this September. So in total, maybe I'm a bit optimistic with 18-19, but 17-18 looks pretty realistic number.

I would like more civs, but I think your numbers are overly optimistic.

 

[aelf]

Good choice everyone likes -> Good change
Bad choice everyone likes -> Dumb luck
Good choice people don't like -> Clinging to the past
Bad choice people don't like -> Bad change

If they change something and people don't like it, it doesn't necessarily mean that the people are clinging to the past. Maybe the change just makes the game worse, more spammy, less fun, or something along those lines.

"Good" and "bad" are not terms that exist independent of context and framing.

 

[aelf]

But fortunately the devs seem to be focused on making the controversial mechanics optional in the most recent patch, step by step. I hope this continues.

I hope so, but we've seen the same prediction every patch and no luck so far.

So are them doing something about the controversial mechanics going to be enough or not?

 

[GeneralZift]

"Good" and "bad" are not terms that exist independent of context and framing.

Yes it's subjective. This is why to some people you might say it's clinging to the past whilst others might say it's a bad change.