Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Core Imposter]

My path of choice would be Earthling, Romulan, and finally Vulcan. Makes just as much sense as any of the in game possibilities.

 

[Bug Repellent]

Delaying the patch that was supposed to be out this week wouldn't have helped. Although releasing a buggy patch would have been worse. Not surprised to see lower lows when people may be holding off starting a new game until after the patch drops.

The last thing the game needs is a big influx of negative reviews on steam from players that report fresh bugs.

 

[Core Imposter]

The last thing the game needs is a big influx of negative reviews on steam from players that report fresh bugs.

That would be repulsive indeed, however, I don't know if enough players are playing to use the word "big". If a game crashes in the forest, does it make a sound? Software can be abandoned from two directions.

 

[Pfeffersack]

First sub 7,000 concurrent player peak today, so we're still dropping

While maintaining an ungood trend, in the light of the delayed patch it isn't a surprise. I for my part will not start another civ games before the patch drops and I'm sure I'm not the only one holding it that way. Delaying the patch itself is good, as others have already pointed out. Prolonging the downtrend another week isn't ideal, but not half as devastaing the rushing out the next patch. Which is IMO fairly crucial for the game. It will not only matter how many people come back to try the game again, but also how many of them stay. So the weeks after the patch will be telling... That one needs to sit, as when it doesn't...well, if bigger maps and workshop don't work as attraction, it will become hard. Not because it would be impossible to repair the game with further patching...but because that process needs funds. The more time passing since release, those are generated also more and more by selling DLC, of which a significant part are new/civs leaders. If bigger maps and easier mod access don't motivate people to get into the game and make them willing to purchase DLC, the the publicher might at some point realize that despite good pre-release sales further content via DLC. And that likely will mean a quick end of patching support as well.

 

[protocol7]

I also guess at some point people will start just liking and playing other games instead of waiting around for civ to get fixed from their perspective.

 

[Chiyo]

But how??? They just announced the map sizes that should have been there from release... Who could have guessed this unfortunate turn of events

That is fine. They have all moved to consols! ;-)

 

[Chiyo]

If you're saying "only cities ever changed hands, not countries", I can only disagree, really. And I don't really understand how "Rome as a natural Ottoman city . . . feels so wrong". Is it any worse than playing as Rome in VI and conquering New York? Does the explicit action of conquest make a difference vs. a transition where it happens off-screen?

Would improving the UX and narrated elements around an Age transition help your gameplay at all? As right now I can understand how it seems a bit sudden. The gameplay elements of the transition are front-and-centre. The narrative, less so.

To the first paragraph: Give me one example of a civilization changing into a new one with the exact same borders as before but now with a different culture, different language and not being taken over by an outside Civ as that is what happened in Civ games anyway, at least when played by a competent player/AI. I don't think there is a single combination in Civ7 for European, African or American civs where these criteria are met.

To the second: For me that would be irrelevant as the age system with the attached Civ switching is completely killing the fun for me. Doing something I dislike more comfortably is no help. The flaws that keep me from enjoying the game are rooted in the core elements of this iteration of Civ so I fear they will not change them and that I am done with Civ7. The only hope I have for me with the franchise is that whoever will lead the franchise in the future will listen to the many players that the game has lost and will concentrate more on the player's wishes next time, which will hopefully be a Civ8.

 

[Gorbles]

For me that would be irrelevant as the age system with the attached Civ switching is completely killing the fun for me.

Alright. So for you the issue is actually the switching, and not specifically the fact that the transition happens. Thanks for explaining

 

[Chiyo]

Alright. So for you the issue is actually the switching, and not specifically the fact that the transition happens. Thanks for explaining

It is both. If I were to keep my Civ but there would be a gap of several 100 years I would not like it. If there was a point where Civs technologically catch up like magic so they are all at the same level I would not like it as well. I want to play one continous game with the result of the Civs being how well they have played so far. If you do unsufficient research you should be behind. If you build up a huge military you should have it as long as you can finance it and do not lose it in war.

 

[Gorbles]

It is both. If I were to keep my Civ but there would be a gap of several 100 years I would not like it. If there was a point where Civs technologically catch up like magic so they are all at the same level I would not like it as well. I want to play one continous game with the result of the Civs being how well they have played so far. If you do unsufficient research you should be behind. If you build up a huge military you should have it as long as you can finance it and do not lose it in war.

If it's both, but addressing or improving one is "no help" in your words, I figured there was an order of importance to the issues. My bad.

Also, yes, you can keep your military. There are zero restrictions (that I'm aware of) except for having the requisite number of Commanders.

 

[Sagax]

Also, yes, you can keep your military. There are zero restrictions (that I'm aware of) except for having the requisite number of Commanders.

Outside of Commanders and units that fit into them, 6 units will carry into Exploration and 9 into Modern. So that’s one more restriction, even if it can be worked around.

Also, if we count navy as part of the military as well, then their carryover from Antiquity is all sorts of wonky. I still don’t know for sure if they are straight up deleted and replaced by a single Cog in Exploration, or they are just prioritized below land units, and so they never survive the transition but technically they could. Any Archipelago players can chime in?

 

[protocol7]

All naval units from ancient are replaced by one cog in exploration, no matter what.

 

[Sagax]

All naval units from ancient are replaced by one cog in exploration, no matter what.

Thanks. Then it’s one more restriction to the list (rip Aksum).

 

[Gorbles]

Outside of Commanders and units that fit into them, 6 units will carry into Exploration and 9 into Modern. So that’s one more restriction, even if it can be worked around.

Yeah, this is why I specified the Commanders. If you have enough of them (and you should, because they're walking modifiers that respawn over time, nevermind the pathing utility), everything you have will carry over.

Wasn't aware of the naval restrictions, will have to test that (though in my experience it takes some beelining to get to naval vs. an land army).

 

[MutilationWave]

This doesn’t hold water for me. Why would Civ VI and V players on Steam suddenly pick up the game for console just because Civ VII was released on console?

Good argument, but the way I see it happening would be people unwilling to upgrade their PC who also have a modern console.

EDIT- I didn't realize I was reading five pages back, this has already been addressed.

 

[Pfeffersack]

Outside of Commanders and units that fit into them, 6 units will carry into Exploration and 9 into Modern. So that’s one more restriction, even if it can be worked around.

Also, if we count navy as part of the military as well, then their carryover from Antiquity is all sorts of wonky. I still don’t know for sure if they are straight up deleted and replaced by a single Cog in Exploration, or they are just prioritized below land units, and so they never survive the transition but technically they could. Any Archipelago players can chime in?

Yeah, this is why I specified the Commanders. If you have enough of them (and you should, because they're walking modifiers that respawn over time, nevermind the pathing utility), everything you have will carry over.

Wasn't aware of the naval restrictions, will have to test that (though in my experience it takes some beelining to get to naval vs. an land army).

My theory is that the near complete naval reset (caused by no maritime commanders existing in the first age and also no "minimum base" of kept naval units) was done to prevent a snowballing strategy by building a huge fleet of galleys in the ancient age, getting all those ships freely turned into cogs and then swarming immediately out with them in the 2nd age to get a quick head-start in exploration.

 

[Nikolai II]

Outside of Commanders and units that fit into them, 6 units will carry into Exploration and 9 into Modern. So that’s one more restriction, even if it can be worked around.

It's an easy restriction, though. My last game, I had over 30 starting units in the modern age. Had I tried, I could have easily had the double.

 

[Kwami]

My theory is that the near complete naval reset (caused by no maritime commanders existing in the first age and also no "minimum base" of kept naval units) was done to prevent a snowballing strategy by building a huge fleet of galleys in the ancient age, getting all those ships freely turned into cogs and then swarming immediately out with them in the 2nd age to get a quick head-start in exploration.

I'm sure that's it.

I wouldn't mind seeing a small adjustment that lets you keep 2-3 extra boats, though. I just end up buying them at the start of the exploration age anyway. And you're still blocked on settlements until you've research some tech to embark settlers, at least.

 

[Skojardu]

I've often wondered what it would look like if Old World came out with a game called Middle World that could continue from your old game, and was just as deep on the next age as OW is on the ancient. New mechanics, buildings, societies, and not just building the same buildings with new names.

@Dale This!!!!

 

[0urBall]

Surely, any possible sequel to Old World would be called New World?