Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Leucarum]

I legitimately have never heard someone complain about not finishing games

Being fair, I think the version of this complaint which was more common in earlier civs would be "X Civ gets their uniques really late so you never get to use them." Which also was something they tried to solve with civ switching.

The rubber banding hasn't really worked either. The human player will invariably learn to game the system, and once you've worked out how to handle age transitions you generally come through them better than the AI... So this is probably the one area where the design didn't really work even to address the devs' goals.

I like Civ7. I would have liked to see these changes work better than they have. But it seems pretty clear they aren't popular changes! I don't think they pulled the problems out of a hat at random, but maybe they weren't as overwhelming a set of problems as firaxis thought...

 

[Xur]

According to this Civ7 is currently 8th in overall sales in the US across all platforms. This to me is a positive.

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1ks17pe/civ7_sales_rank_in_the_us

The ranking is a bit deceptive. It's ranked on dollar sales, so a more expensive product is weighted higher - and civ7 was quite expensive if you wanted early access and DLC - founders edition at 130$. $70+$30DLC is still a lot for that broken mess. The only thing I get from this chart, is that it had a high revenue compared to other games, but it's trending down from 7 to 8. Civ7 couldn't outperform other new games - only old games.

If a AAA game sells 100,000 copies at $130 they get $13,000,000 revenue.
If a AA game sells 200,000 copies at $40 they get $8,000,000 revenue.
If a indie game sells 300,000 copies at $20 they get $6,000,000 revenue.

According to that chart, the AAA game would be the most popular. But in my world, the indie game should be winning. I know it's not $130 average, I'm just making a point. It's a useless chart.

 

[MutilationWave]

Exactly this. I also don't find the Ages system to have perfectly remedied the snowballing issue. Considering that Modern is a sprint to victory, I find that most games are won/lost in the Exploration Age. This mirrors previous iterations where the winner can be predicted by the mid-game.

I almost always quit my civ games around gunpowder, until 7. Not only do I enjoy the earlier parts of the game more, but I could generally already tell I had won. Now I finish my games because I'm a sucker for an experience system.

 

[queenpea]

Being fair, I think the version of this complaint which was more common in earlier civs would be "X Civ gets their uniques really late so you never get to use them." Which also was something they tried to solve with civ switching.

The rubber banding hasn't really worked either. The human player will invariably learn to game the system, and once you've worked out how to handle age transitions you generally come through them better than the AI... So this is probably the one area where the design didn't really work even to address the devs' goals.

I like Civ7. I would have liked to see these changes work better than they have. But it seems pretty clear they aren't popular changes!

I thought the "not finishing" problem was related to snowballing -- once you hit the mid-game, it becomes clear who the winner will be, so why bother finishing the play-through? This is combined with a popular consensus that the late game is boring, requires a lot of micromanagement and moving around of units and is generally slower than the early game. All of this combined creates a strong bias for players to quit at the end of the game to start a new (and more exciting) game.

 

[Leucarum]

Now I finish my games because I'm a sucker for an experience system.

Me too... But then I got the unlocks I wanted and... Now I almost never play modern

 

[AD1730]

Being fair, I think the version of this complaint which was more common in earlier civs would be "X Civ gets their uniques really late so you never get to use them." Which also was something they tried to solve with civ switching.

The rubber banding hasn't really worked either. The human player will invariably learn to game the system, and once you've worked out how to handle age transitions you generally come through them better than the AI... So this is probably the one area where the design didn't really work even to address the devs' goals.

I like Civ7. I would have liked to see these changes work better than they have. But it seems pretty clear they aren't popular changes!

I get that some people complained about not getting to use an ability soon enough. To me, the true issue was that the impact of these abilities weren't enough to overcome the amount of time you had to wait to get them. If I have to wait until the industrial era or after to get an ability, that better be a strong ability. Also, if you give me a unique unit this late, please allow it to promote and retain its special ability. I'm so tired of America getting a B-24 for about 10 turns before it's obsolete.

 

[Leucarum]

I thought the "not finishing" problem was related to snowballing -- once you hit the mid-game, it becomes clear who the winner will be, so why bother the play-through? This is combined with a popular consensus that the late game is boring, requires a lot of micromanagement and moving around of units and is generally slower than the early game. All of this combined creates a strong bias for players to quit at the end of the game to start a new (and more exciting) game.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. All the problems the devs tried to solve are interconnected. Players stop playing because the game is effectively done... Which means they never access civ abilities which trigger late...

Where 7 has over-achieved is reducing late game micromanagement which was DEFINITELY a reason I stopped playing games on 6! I wonder if that alone would have made a big difference.

 

[MutilationWave]

The two aren't mutually exclusive. All the problems the devs tried to solve are interconnected. Players stop playing because the game is effectively done... Which means they never access civ abilities which trigger late...

Where 7 has over-achieved is reducing late game micromanagement which was DEFINITELY a reason I stopped playing games on 6! I wonder if that alone would have made a big difference.

It all comes back to the AI for me. If they can make the AI good at the game it makes so many of the other problems not as big of a deal.

 

[Leucarum]

It all comes back to the AI for me. If they can make the AI good at the game it makes so many of the other problems not as big of a deal.

And then they bump into issues wirh Civ being the gateway 4X game. They need to keep it very newbie friendly so killer AI is... Problematic. Or at least needs to be very optional.

 

[queenpea]

And then they bump into issues wirh Civ being the gateway 4X game. They need to keep it very newbie friendly so killer AI is... Problematic. Or at least needs to be very optional.

But this is why we have the game difficulty slider...

 

[MutilationWave]

And then they bump into issues wirh Civ being the gateway 4X game. They need to keep it very newbie friendly so killer AI is... Problematic.

That's why we have difficulty levels though. Instead of all the bonuses to the opponents or malus to the player, make the difficulty options about how good the AI is.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

There is an interesting thread on Reddit.

"I play it as a sort of roleplaying fantasy game, and I love it. It's definitely sandbox-y, the win conditions are rarely my goal"

"The fact that I don't care for the winning screen. I play Civ to build up civilizations, and it's a lot of fun! But I usually set my own goals for what I want my society to become - there are tons of things you can go for!"

"One of my favorite things to do in Civ games is getting the “winning” out of the way and then spend a thousand years just playing world police."

That is not a representative snapshot of the Civ community, but it is interesting how some playstyles prefer open-ended games. For them, Civ 6 is the SimCity of the 4X genre.

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1ksfgrz/has_civilization_series_ever_been_a_sandbox

I actually play like this a lot of the times. Sometimes I’ll get in the mood to hyper min max and rush to a specific victory but often I let myself get immersed into the world, how it develops, and what my place in it will be. I’m particularly fond of Tokugawa’s Japan in Civ 6 as I don’t feel the immense pressure of rapid expansion due to the great bonuses for domestic routes. I often find myself being “awoken” late game by a warmonger and like to leverage my exceptional economy against them.

 

[Leucarum]

I will say I really dislike how they have done AI difficulty in 7. Especially the combat strength buff, as it just makes combat take forever on the highest difficulties (unless you really stack your own combat strength.) I think above Sovereign I find warfare just feels really tedious with the amount of clicks it takes to get through... And the AI still presents a minimal threat if we're being honest. I've taken to playing pacifist when I go above Sovereign, and that's basically the point where I find warfare becomes unenjoyable if I go above.

 

[Leucarum]

But this is why we have the game difficulty slider...

I did say optional

 

[AD1730]

I would love to have the ability to customize difficulty how I want. Give me a menu where I can select what buffs/nerfs the AI or I get.

 

[MutilationWave]

I will say I really dislike how they have done AI difficulty in 7. Especially the combat strength buff, as it just makes combat take forever on the highest difficulties (unless you really stack your own combat strength.) I think above Sovereign I find warfare just feels really tedious with the amount of clicks it takes to get through... And the AI still presents a minimal threat if we're being honest. I've taken to playing pacifist when I go above Sovereign, and that's basically the point where I find warfare becomes unenjoyable if I go above.

That's actually the main reason why I play deity. They not only have the bonus but they breed new units like bunnies when under attack until the front line is like 20 vs 20 units or more. It's really fun, all I truly wish is that they managed their troops better or knew how to use commanders or don't put your cavalry in the river in front of my archers, or or or

 

[Leucarum]

That's actually the main reason why I play deity. They not only have the bonus but they breed new units like bunnies when under attack until the front line is like 20 vs 20 units or more. It's really fun, all I truly wish is that they managed their troops better or knew how to use commanders or don't put your cavalry in the river in front of my archers, or or or

I guess one person's fun is another person's micromanagement? Glad you enjoy it but as a big fan of how much Civ7 reduced micromanagement overall, I was a disappointed that immortal/deity managed to undo a lot of that.

 

[MutilationWave]

I guess one person's fun is another person's micromanagement? Glad you enjoy it but as a big fan of how much Civ7 reduced micromanagement overall, I was a disappointed that immortal/deity managed to undo a lot of that.

I just really enjoy the combat, I think 7 is the best so far at it. When I think micromanagement I think about missionaries. War is different. Yeah I will spend 20 minutes taking my turn sometimes, especially in a world war. If I were at peace my turns would be like 1 minute max.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

It all comes back to the AI for me. If they can make the AI good at the game it makes so many of the other problems not as big of a deal.

I think they can also design late game civs to “catch up” they did this in Civ 6 but the Ai wasn’t good enough to take advantage. A civ like England has such massive yield boosts in the industrial era they can easily go from the worst to best Civ in any game. Maori also have catch up designed bonuses. It can be done, it needs to rely on a solid AI

I’ve had multiplayer matches where industrial Victoria player went from second to last to winning the game 10 turns before me despite my completely dominating and it hinged entirely on him getting his coal plants online. He sealed the deal with two well placed nukes that somehow avoided my anti air defenses. I was helpless to stop him as I was running a landlocked massive mountainous empire and he was across the ocean. Without even a port, I could do little against him.

 

[Leucarum]

I just really enjoy the combat, I think 7 is the best so far at it. When I think micromanagement I think about missionaries. War is different. Yeah I will spend 20 minutes taking my turn sometimes, especially in a world war. If I were at peace my turns would be like 1 minute max.

I do think 7 does the best job of combat in a Civ game. It really promotes a mixed arms approach... But that approach gets very very tedious when combat takes place over a large scale, as tends to happen on deity since you're often relying on multiple interconnected parts bringing down specific targets... Hence best combat yet, but it gets tedious at higher difficulties.