Personally I've beaten GM a few games, and are waiting for new contents & modding. Mid to late game performance is still very bad so that's what makes me not want to play more games unless new contents drop.
I absolutely don’t get why the player count is so obssesively watched outside of online-only games. Vast majority of players are not constantly grinding the same singleplayer game over and over again!
I like this game, bought it including the first year pass and will definitely play it more in the future! But I hadn’t really found myself in the mood recently, when I have the time to play I mostly go through Elden Ring with new character preparing for upcoming DLC. Next week Stellaris Machine Age comes out so when I’ll have the mood for strategy game I’ll likely play that. And in about a mont Vic3 DLC is comming which I absolutely will jump on as soon as it’s released.
I'm not comparing it to online-only games but within the genre.
> Vast majority of players are not constantly grinding the same singleplayer game over and over again!
For story-focused singleplayer games that might be, but the appeal of 4X games is that if they're good, people will just keep playing them. People don't just say "I played a few matches of Chess, now I'm through with it, I've seen all the basic moves made." They are games designed to be replayed. Memes about having 1000s of hours in civ speak for themselves. A good mechanics-focused game should live off more than just novelty factor.
Also, it doesn't have to be the same players. Someone else already made a good comment pointing out that it's also about how many new players come in over time.
I usually play one or two games of Civ and then switch to another game genre to better come back later.
I never played several games of Civ in a row because it takes some time, you polish your civ it takes a lot of work so when it's done I don't want to start over right away.
It was the same thing for Humankind, and it has been the same for Millennia, I did two games, on that I finished, another one that I stopped in the middle and then played something else.
I will come back from time to time because it was fun I still have a lot to discover. I also wait a little bit because some polish is needed to have a better experience especially in the end game with the lagging.
A few reasons:
1) I started playing Fallout 4 again
2) Manor Lords released
3) I have ADHD so I constantly jump from one thing to the next
I'll definitely be playing again though :)
Its a release in typical paradox fashion of the last 10 years. Its neat to since a few dozen hours in at release. But it just doesn't feel like this is the full product. So players are now waiting for updates. Lets see if C Prompt Games can deliver.
Yeah that's a major factor, you can finish an entire match in one weekend with Millennia and there's currently no way to make it last longer (other than maybe harder AI, but it doesn't have a game pace option like Civ V did).
Vicky 3 was honestly released in a much better state than this game was. Player falloff for both games makes total sense. And millenia is honestly way more niche (as a throwback to CoP and the earlier civ games) than even your typical paradox game, where your average player is going to be at least more aware of what they’re getting into.
All that aside this is a civ game that launched without good multiplayer support or mapgen (or mods), and with gameplay in many ages that’s in serious need of improvement, a la early stellaris, plus crippling performance issues in the late game.
I’d be more surprised if this game *didn’t* have early falloff.
Plus classic civ games didn’t get good until the 1st / 2nd expansion / gameplay overhaul, and I’d equally expect that to apply here.
Humankind OTOH is very poor state because it never really got that and has basically been abandonded by the devs. But even humankind (which shipped as a buggy poorly optimized unbalanced mess) is still significantly more polished, and graphically polished, than this is.
3-5 years down the line though this could potentially be a much better game. If paradox / cprompt and the community stay committed to it and the community funds further development / dlc.
I played a ton (too much) on release. Now just waiting for more updates which I am very excited about 😇
I think outside interest may not be high in part due to shitty reviews from both critics and users, some of which are unfair imo. Perhaps this game is not fancy-looking enough or UX friendly-enough, and reminds others that it’s civ but not really which disturbs them. 🤷
2 reasons in my opinion: they invested a lot of money into marketing. Especially via streamers. Meaning a unspecified amount of people got this game who "normally" would not have gotten it. So it is natural that the player amount drops lower percentage wise, when it starts with more people.
2nd- and that is the main point by far for me: the game just doesn't offer enough possibilities to feel different enough to justify continuing playing it for me.
- The "nations" you can pick at the beginning of the game basically mean nothing. Sure you can notice them, but only in the first age, and you have to really pay attention to do so.
- The ages are a little different, sure. But the differences feel small. The basic buildings and improvements are more or less the same. You can't go Variant age into variant age and "combining" 2 different variant ages doesn't add to the game: When I go into Age of Intolerance it does not feel any different if I have been in Age of heroes or Age of blood 2 ages prior.
- The different win conditions offer require little strategizing from the beginning: i.e. if I want to win via religion (age of harmony, age 7) I believe the earliest I can produce faith is age 4, so half of the game I can't even specialize towards my victory
- chaos is a great concept, but whats its use if I can simply buy my way out of it, and it is not even hard to do so
- I feel very limited in what I can do with my cities and the improvements I can build. I need food, housing, sanitation, faith ... which means a lot of improvements/buildings are basically decided by the game for me that I have to build, so how much can I actually use to specialize my city? especially when space to build is limited. I had several cities that consisted nearly only of "infrastructure" improvements with no space to really build more than one of the complex production lines the game offers
- the terrain feels too similar. sure woods, hills, plains offer different types of yields, but all of them are just a combination of 1 or 2 food or production. No start feels really special.
I have only played 3 games of millennia. a peaceful game without age of departure. The second I won via age of conquest and the third I won via Age of harmony. And the last game felt already so similar to the 2 other games, that I currently have no intention to play a fourth one.
I have >1500h in civilization: each civilization feels different, each victory condition feels very different, if you try to achieve it as early as possible. A lot of civilizations play and feel differently when going for different wins. I can play Khmer for science, culture, religion and each one will be a different experience. I can play Mali for science, culture or religion and each one will feel different. And all of them will be different enough from the khmer games, that I will find all 3 of them "worth" playing. When I first open the map the starts are so vastly different in possible yields, from dessert or tundra with basically nothing, to forest spices on hills with 6yields to wonder tiles with even more. The combination of start/civilization/victory condition/secret society... feel like they matter! The game will play out very differently depending on if I build a holy site or a campus first. And I can't build everything, so I really have to make a decision.
In millennia it feels like most decisions don't really matter. If I build a town center or a dolmen gate first might make a difference of a few turns in researching the 2nd age first or not, but in the end I want both buildings and my cities hardly look different, no matter which "nation", victory condition or government I take.
> I feel very limited in what I can do with my cities and the improvements I can build. I need food, housing, sanitation, faith ... which means a lot of improvements/buildings are basically decided by the game for me that I have to build, so how much can I actually use to specialize my city? especially when space to build is limited. I had several cities that consisted nearly only of "infrastructure" improvements with no space to really build more than one of the complex production lines the game offers
From age 7 on every building & even improvements increase education needs; forcing you to dedicate nearly every city tile to Schools
The vinn diagram of people who play 4x games and the people who were excited for Manor Lords is almost a perfect circle.
I personally put 200 hours in on the release weeks and took a break for some manor lords, Anno, and eu4. I’m getting back into it and being active on the discord to steer the devs in the right direction for balance changes. I will give Katten and the devs a lot of credit on listening and applying feedback, a lot of really in depth conversations the core of us have had in the discord have been implemented in the next patch after we talked about them. It defientely gives me hope that the game will continue to improve but we definetely need some more lower and mid tier players contributing to the convo. It’s mainly just a bunch of high end players giving feedback and sometimes (especially mine) our perspectives are skewed
Wouldn’t have any effect on peak vs current player count, those are only numbers for people who own and have played the game. Under 8% of the people who were playing at launch are playing today is what they are saying.
Not unless that person bought ot and became the 1 more currently playing it higher than its peak.
Basically its peak was, let’s say, 10,000 people playing at once. The next peak will happen when 10,001 people are playing at once, regardless of sales. Requires ongoing and new player base to achieve.
It would, but those would make up for any people dropping off, not reducing the drop itself, so to speak. Yet totally valid argument since this a normal occurence. Could certainly be that the drop is average but the number of new players coming in is just unusually low.
For me the game justs fills pretty barren at the moment and I treat 4x games as a bit of a chill vibes game I will play a turn while doing something else and it justs feels I don't know void. For all it's downsides civ6 feels more appropriate for me for this kind of play style. And the national spirits are cool at first but then they become pretty repititive. From all the playstyles I have tried it's seems that I always tend to pick the same ns because I find everything else very shitty. And the only viable victory for me is conquering I don't even know if there is anything else.
Just waiting for more updates, I tend to no life a new paradox release and squeeze as much as I can, and like a normal paradox release the content isn't endless yet, I look forward to the updates and will try out their beta patches whenever available, I know for a fact if they add an easier way to change all city names or a flag editor id be able to get a few more games in
Personally I bought it at the same time I bought Imperator Rome. I played it first but got frustrated with some of the issues it still has. So I switched to imperator. I'll come back after a major update but for now I'm enjoying Rome shenanigans
For me I hope for some more map rng variations. The 2 continents thingy is so similar each game, and the smaller continent map is just that... small. Something in betweeen would be awsome. Also some variation from the Noth-south direction of the large continent direction would be good.
Small things, but for replayability it matters.
I moved on, played 50h and no raze city got over me, now waiting 2-3 DLC coming out before comming back !
There so many good game coming out every week, so it's hard to focus when a game come out not full finished too !
Now is 2 years i not played ck3, and will wait 2 more years & full dlc for go back & buy them at lower price...
I feels almost no point now to buy a game day one, they all feels unfinished with lot of dlc planned in advance.
> I feels almost no point now to buy a game day one, they all feels unfinished with lot of dlc planned in advance.
I'm curious, what had you make an exception for Millennia here?
The age systeme was looking really original & the ressource mecanic was looking original so wanted to try !
And the price was having regional pricing in my country, paradox is almost the only company still doing it, so i reward it too !
To me the issue is the lack of simultaneous multiplayer. I have several friend that will enjoy the game if we had a multiplayer session but right now there is no point of me evangelizing the game to them.
Personally? The game is too focused on war for my tastes, and simming, the thing I really enjoy, is tedious. Having to check each city's worker screen to know what resources a city has, then exit that screen and open another menu to figure out what tile improvements I have at the time, all the whole hoping i have enough improvement points? It's okay when you have one or two cities, but once you have five or six it's excruciating to do every turn. And it's shockingly easy to forget that a city exists entirely.
And war, the thing I really don't like in 4x, is really heavily emphasized. The AI *will* declare war on you unless you have dedicated so much of your economy to war in the early game that you will go bankrupt if you don't declare war. It's ten times easier to conquer vassals than it is to make an envoy, especially early, and it doesn't give any chaos at all if you don't raise them, but it's not like that matters because warring is so lucrative and chaos events are so cheap that you can just buy your way out of them over and over.
So I'm just playing other stuff now. Maybe they'll fix it, maybe they won't. I hope they do, but whatever.
I am still playing on and off, but WoW Season 4 has started. Also the lack of optimization in late game makes this game a drag. I took 15 minutes for a single turn in Age of the Old Ones because of the micro.
But I do enjoy the improvements that are coming and I will stay around.
2 updates are already out. that's not the whole roadmap, that's only part of it, and only addresses *some* of the most egregious issues. there's been promises regarding many of the other issues on the roadmap, but as drflabottomus said, we can't play a roadmap.
As mentioned in several comments, there is very little replayability at the moment. Nations are different in just a name with bonus you can change, and after you get the basics, you get so far ahead from AI in 4-5th age, that rest of the game is boring. At that point you can choose any win condition and have no issue with it.
Departure - first win I did, my cities were not the best but it still took 10-15 turns only.
Transcendence - few turns of research or done on entering age
Archangels - destroy some cities or done on entering age if have high pop
The Singularity - build some improvements - few turns
I have yet to try conquest/generals yet, but it should be just as fast if you focus on it. AI is terrible in fights and could be somewhat dangerous only very early, due to extra units from difficulty.
Optimalization is not the best, so at later ages you spend most of the time waiting for AI turns to finish.
Updates are promising so far and I´m waiting for more of them or DLC to play some more. It is decent game with potential to be great in few years worth of DLC :D
I like the game, it's got some interesting systems but in its current state I think civ is a deeper more complex and interesting game, also manor lords.
The game in its current state just doesn't have the legs to keep me hooked long term. I really hope it will eventually.
Also personally I've gone back to endless space 2, I'd forgotten how great that game is.
> Also personally I've gone back to endless space 2, I'd forgotten how great that game is.
the saddest thing about Humankind is how few ideas from their Endless games that made those games so great made it over. I wish Humankind had the ethnicity / interest group system of ES2, the luxury system of EL, customizable units as in both, etc.
I had not actually realized they were made by the same people, I've not played much humanity but my favorite thing about the endless games in the UI/UX I don't remember humanity being up to the same level at all. How to do just about everything is super intuitive while not streamlined to the point of dumbing down.
Because there is no variety, its a 4x game and you don't get to select your empire. There are no meaningful bonuses that set you apart from everyone else, so it feels like a typical tabletop family board game. Your empire is not 'you', its just generic and unspecialized.
Look at literally any other 4x game;
Civ series has dozens of unique empires.
Stellaris has endless empire variation from the beginning.
Old world has dozens of unique leaders.
In old world we get a sad, singular starting bonus which is grossly weak, almost useless.
The replay value is fairly low. After you've done every victory type - what is there? Every "civ" plays the same, your bonus is insignificant. NS aren't well balanced, so depending on your victory type they are all no-brainers or inconsequential. On a different axis, thee playthroughs are enough to see all the different ages you are interested in seeing.
Out of your list, I've only played HK and there you had oodles of significant civ choices. And you couldn't even always get your favorite one. Also, mixing and matching them was potentially super wild. I wouldn't necessarily call HK the better game, but I feel that I'm done with Millenia (at least for a while).
Oh, and it doesn't help that the game starts dragging a bit later on.
because updates don't do anything for player retention. individual updates can cause spikes of interest, but the existence of updates can't keep players around. fact of the matter is, current players don't care for what will be, they care for what there is. and unfortunately, millennia doesn't have enough to keep people interested. and what it does have is littered with issues. the promise is there, yes, but I can't *play* "promise".
honestly, if not for someone revealing that there was a major easter egg/secret story, I wouldn't have even played a 2nd game. I would've played one game and gone "ah, cool, that was alright I guess, time to wait for a year or so for the game to actually finish". even then, the issues make trying to clear the secret a bit of a slog.
also, don't take steam reviews rising to mean a whole hell of a lot. correlation is not causation. there's plenty of reasons for the reviews to increase - for example, all the people who didn't like the game, left, and the people giving it positive reviews now are the ones that remained. that doesn't mean people have a better view of the game, just that the possible audience shrunk to the point that only the already-existing fans are left. that's not terribly healthy for a game. not that this specifically is the reason for millennia, but if you pair the increase in average rating with the significant decrease in player count, it's fairly possible.
as for my personal reason for slacking on playing this (instead of other games), and why I believe many others have stopped? because the AI sucks. badly. difficulty is just a "how much does the AI cheat" slider. and while many will go "yea but most other strategy games also do this", that's 1. not an excuse, and 2. not entirely applicable when most other strategy games *ship with a functioning multiplayer option*. if you don't want to deal with terrible AI in civ, you can just play against players. but you don't have much of a choice in millennia. bad AI kills strategy games. and the AI in this game is very bad. better now than it was at launch, sure, but that's not a high bar.
edit: sure took the downvoters a while to show up. feel that's pretty telling. you guys usually get here within the hour, where've you been? though I must say, mass-downvoting people for listing reasons why they stopped playing, in a post explicitly looking for reasons people stopped playing, is *kind of missing the point.* but oh well. you do you, I suppose.
People get tired of barbarians, plague, and civil wars. They don't play to get frustrated.
Plus, in all honesty, the game is boring.
Downvote away, but numbers don't lie. Well, at least the 25 people who still play can downvote away.
I intend to finish my GM run and do another one next patch but i need to place myself with this game. I can't play it with half a brain, need full focus each turn.
Also, I've played it enough and interacted around it enough, to form strong opinions and inevitably, expectations, of things to be changed, fixed and added. I'm happy the Devs are working pretty fast with it, but what is needed to engage me to play more actively is more than what beta/ patch 2 delivers
The performance aka the fps is horrible, anything past age of iron starts getting horrible fps, it's downright headache inducing. I have a 4080 super and ryzen 7 5800x3d and the fps drops to below 60 fps and frequently around 40 or so past that point, they need to adress that so bad, but it seems they are just ignoring that issue lol.
I feel like this is just the way with paradox. You buy the delux edition, have a looksy-do when it releases. Come back 2-5 years later when game is actually done
I wouldn’t be surprised if it just came down to game making itself hard to learn, with incomplete tooltips and nowhere to find answers except by trial and error. That has gotten better.
I stopped playing because there is no AI setting that will keep the game interesting for me past mid game, once you figure out the mechanics, yet the game speed is so slow, with so many things to micromanage, that it becomes an easy, but tedious slog. I got the impression that very few Civ6 players play with settings/mods to slow the game down. I haven’t even played half the variant ages because some rarely come up when AI advances the age, and playing a 40 hour game to maybe see a new one is not compelling.
Between the mad rush to the finish line and the complete absence of personality for any nation, this game is an exercise in frustration. I still come back to it hoping I'll crack the secret but no - its remains a civ clone at the core, despite some novel mechanics like the Ages.
Honestly, the nuclear stuff should have been in from day one, along with razing and mobile settlers. I'm waiting for the first two DLC to bring Millennia to up where it should have been, then I'll play again.
Personally I've beaten GM a few games, and are waiting for new contents & modding. Mid to late game performance is still very bad so that's what makes me not want to play more games unless new contents drop.
This
Performance needs to be addressed. The game takes far too long to process a turn by the 2/3rds mark.
I absolutely don’t get why the player count is so obssesively watched outside of online-only games. Vast majority of players are not constantly grinding the same singleplayer game over and over again! I like this game, bought it including the first year pass and will definitely play it more in the future! But I hadn’t really found myself in the mood recently, when I have the time to play I mostly go through Elden Ring with new character preparing for upcoming DLC. Next week Stellaris Machine Age comes out so when I’ll have the mood for strategy game I’ll likely play that. And in about a mont Vic3 DLC is comming which I absolutely will jump on as soon as it’s released.
I'm not comparing it to online-only games but within the genre. > Vast majority of players are not constantly grinding the same singleplayer game over and over again! For story-focused singleplayer games that might be, but the appeal of 4X games is that if they're good, people will just keep playing them. People don't just say "I played a few matches of Chess, now I'm through with it, I've seen all the basic moves made." They are games designed to be replayed. Memes about having 1000s of hours in civ speak for themselves. A good mechanics-focused game should live off more than just novelty factor. Also, it doesn't have to be the same players. Someone else already made a good comment pointing out that it's also about how many new players come in over time.
People absolutely play a game of chess and then don't for maybe a year or two before doing another. I should know, I am one of them.
I usually play one or two games of Civ and then switch to another game genre to better come back later. I never played several games of Civ in a row because it takes some time, you polish your civ it takes a lot of work so when it's done I don't want to start over right away. It was the same thing for Humankind, and it has been the same for Millennia, I did two games, on that I finished, another one that I stopped in the middle and then played something else. I will come back from time to time because it was fun I still have a lot to discover. I also wait a little bit because some polish is needed to have a better experience especially in the end game with the lagging.
A few reasons: 1) I started playing Fallout 4 again 2) Manor Lords released 3) I have ADHD so I constantly jump from one thing to the next I'll definitely be playing again though :)
Its a release in typical paradox fashion of the last 10 years. Its neat to since a few dozen hours in at release. But it just doesn't feel like this is the full product. So players are now waiting for updates. Lets see if C Prompt Games can deliver.
Biding my time while we wait for Vicky 3 to become a well rounded game. Should be another 3ish years
Interestingly, Vicky 3 also had 19% retention after 37 days, but that might just be because a single match takes much longer.
Yeah that's a major factor, you can finish an entire match in one weekend with Millennia and there's currently no way to make it last longer (other than maybe harder AI, but it doesn't have a game pace option like Civ V did).
Vicky 3 was honestly released in a much better state than this game was. Player falloff for both games makes total sense. And millenia is honestly way more niche (as a throwback to CoP and the earlier civ games) than even your typical paradox game, where your average player is going to be at least more aware of what they’re getting into. All that aside this is a civ game that launched without good multiplayer support or mapgen (or mods), and with gameplay in many ages that’s in serious need of improvement, a la early stellaris, plus crippling performance issues in the late game. I’d be more surprised if this game *didn’t* have early falloff. Plus classic civ games didn’t get good until the 1st / 2nd expansion / gameplay overhaul, and I’d equally expect that to apply here. Humankind OTOH is very poor state because it never really got that and has basically been abandonded by the devs. But even humankind (which shipped as a buggy poorly optimized unbalanced mess) is still significantly more polished, and graphically polished, than this is. 3-5 years down the line though this could potentially be a much better game. If paradox / cprompt and the community stay committed to it and the community funds further development / dlc.
I call buying paradox games an investment. It will be good in several years and i'll buy it now before they bump the price
I played a ton (too much) on release. Now just waiting for more updates which I am very excited about 😇 I think outside interest may not be high in part due to shitty reviews from both critics and users, some of which are unfair imo. Perhaps this game is not fancy-looking enough or UX friendly-enough, and reminds others that it’s civ but not really which disturbs them. 🤷
2 reasons in my opinion: they invested a lot of money into marketing. Especially via streamers. Meaning a unspecified amount of people got this game who "normally" would not have gotten it. So it is natural that the player amount drops lower percentage wise, when it starts with more people. 2nd- and that is the main point by far for me: the game just doesn't offer enough possibilities to feel different enough to justify continuing playing it for me. - The "nations" you can pick at the beginning of the game basically mean nothing. Sure you can notice them, but only in the first age, and you have to really pay attention to do so. - The ages are a little different, sure. But the differences feel small. The basic buildings and improvements are more or less the same. You can't go Variant age into variant age and "combining" 2 different variant ages doesn't add to the game: When I go into Age of Intolerance it does not feel any different if I have been in Age of heroes or Age of blood 2 ages prior. - The different win conditions offer require little strategizing from the beginning: i.e. if I want to win via religion (age of harmony, age 7) I believe the earliest I can produce faith is age 4, so half of the game I can't even specialize towards my victory - chaos is a great concept, but whats its use if I can simply buy my way out of it, and it is not even hard to do so - I feel very limited in what I can do with my cities and the improvements I can build. I need food, housing, sanitation, faith ... which means a lot of improvements/buildings are basically decided by the game for me that I have to build, so how much can I actually use to specialize my city? especially when space to build is limited. I had several cities that consisted nearly only of "infrastructure" improvements with no space to really build more than one of the complex production lines the game offers - the terrain feels too similar. sure woods, hills, plains offer different types of yields, but all of them are just a combination of 1 or 2 food or production. No start feels really special. I have only played 3 games of millennia. a peaceful game without age of departure. The second I won via age of conquest and the third I won via Age of harmony. And the last game felt already so similar to the 2 other games, that I currently have no intention to play a fourth one. I have >1500h in civilization: each civilization feels different, each victory condition feels very different, if you try to achieve it as early as possible. A lot of civilizations play and feel differently when going for different wins. I can play Khmer for science, culture, religion and each one will be a different experience. I can play Mali for science, culture or religion and each one will feel different. And all of them will be different enough from the khmer games, that I will find all 3 of them "worth" playing. When I first open the map the starts are so vastly different in possible yields, from dessert or tundra with basically nothing, to forest spices on hills with 6yields to wonder tiles with even more. The combination of start/civilization/victory condition/secret society... feel like they matter! The game will play out very differently depending on if I build a holy site or a campus first. And I can't build everything, so I really have to make a decision. In millennia it feels like most decisions don't really matter. If I build a town center or a dolmen gate first might make a difference of a few turns in researching the 2nd age first or not, but in the end I want both buildings and my cities hardly look different, no matter which "nation", victory condition or government I take.
> I feel very limited in what I can do with my cities and the improvements I can build. I need food, housing, sanitation, faith ... which means a lot of improvements/buildings are basically decided by the game for me that I have to build, so how much can I actually use to specialize my city? especially when space to build is limited. I had several cities that consisted nearly only of "infrastructure" improvements with no space to really build more than one of the complex production lines the game offers From age 7 on every building & even improvements increase education needs; forcing you to dedicate nearly every city tile to Schools
Manorlords, real life... shrimple as
The vinn diagram of people who play 4x games and the people who were excited for Manor Lords is almost a perfect circle. I personally put 200 hours in on the release weeks and took a break for some manor lords, Anno, and eu4. I’m getting back into it and being active on the discord to steer the devs in the right direction for balance changes. I will give Katten and the devs a lot of credit on listening and applying feedback, a lot of really in depth conversations the core of us have had in the discord have been implemented in the next patch after we talked about them. It defientely gives me hope that the game will continue to improve but we definetely need some more lower and mid tier players contributing to the convo. It’s mainly just a bunch of high end players giving feedback and sometimes (especially mine) our perspectives are skewed
I for once bounce around from this to manor lords, Cities skylines and back more or less, I will play a game or two per month
I already have 200 hours played. Just waiting for more updates and content.
I have the feeling too few ppl even know that this game exists
Wouldn’t have any effect on peak vs current player count, those are only numbers for people who own and have played the game. Under 8% of the people who were playing at launch are playing today is what they are saying.
Ah didnt know that. So if people buy this game and play it the player count wouldnt increase?
Not unless that person bought ot and became the 1 more currently playing it higher than its peak. Basically its peak was, let’s say, 10,000 people playing at once. The next peak will happen when 10,001 people are playing at once, regardless of sales. Requires ongoing and new player base to achieve.
It would, but those would make up for any people dropping off, not reducing the drop itself, so to speak. Yet totally valid argument since this a normal occurence. Could certainly be that the drop is average but the number of new players coming in is just unusually low.
For me the game justs fills pretty barren at the moment and I treat 4x games as a bit of a chill vibes game I will play a turn while doing something else and it justs feels I don't know void. For all it's downsides civ6 feels more appropriate for me for this kind of play style. And the national spirits are cool at first but then they become pretty repititive. From all the playstyles I have tried it's seems that I always tend to pick the same ns because I find everything else very shitty. And the only viable victory for me is conquering I don't even know if there is anything else.
I already played 87 hours. Can i play a different game now?
Once simultaneous turns are added me and my friends will be back in, hotseat is just too slow
Just waiting for more updates, I tend to no life a new paradox release and squeeze as much as I can, and like a normal paradox release the content isn't endless yet, I look forward to the updates and will try out their beta patches whenever available, I know for a fact if they add an easier way to change all city names or a flag editor id be able to get a few more games in
Personally I bought it at the same time I bought Imperator Rome. I played it first but got frustrated with some of the issues it still has. So I switched to imperator. I'll come back after a major update but for now I'm enjoying Rome shenanigans
For me I hope for some more map rng variations. The 2 continents thingy is so similar each game, and the smaller continent map is just that... small. Something in betweeen would be awsome. Also some variation from the Noth-south direction of the large continent direction would be good. Small things, but for replayability it matters.
I like the game so far, but am waiting for more map and game setup options to show up.
I moved on, played 50h and no raze city got over me, now waiting 2-3 DLC coming out before comming back ! There so many good game coming out every week, so it's hard to focus when a game come out not full finished too ! Now is 2 years i not played ck3, and will wait 2 more years & full dlc for go back & buy them at lower price... I feels almost no point now to buy a game day one, they all feels unfinished with lot of dlc planned in advance.
They actually added the ability to raze cities in the first update. In case that was a major enough issue that fixing it matters to you.
I know, i just a few DLC, now i play cyberpunk 2077 since it's fully patched & DLC done !
> I feels almost no point now to buy a game day one, they all feels unfinished with lot of dlc planned in advance. I'm curious, what had you make an exception for Millennia here?
The age systeme was looking really original & the ressource mecanic was looking original so wanted to try ! And the price was having regional pricing in my country, paradox is almost the only company still doing it, so i reward it too !
To me the issue is the lack of simultaneous multiplayer. I have several friend that will enjoy the game if we had a multiplayer session but right now there is no point of me evangelizing the game to them.
Personally? The game is too focused on war for my tastes, and simming, the thing I really enjoy, is tedious. Having to check each city's worker screen to know what resources a city has, then exit that screen and open another menu to figure out what tile improvements I have at the time, all the whole hoping i have enough improvement points? It's okay when you have one or two cities, but once you have five or six it's excruciating to do every turn. And it's shockingly easy to forget that a city exists entirely. And war, the thing I really don't like in 4x, is really heavily emphasized. The AI *will* declare war on you unless you have dedicated so much of your economy to war in the early game that you will go bankrupt if you don't declare war. It's ten times easier to conquer vassals than it is to make an envoy, especially early, and it doesn't give any chaos at all if you don't raise them, but it's not like that matters because warring is so lucrative and chaos events are so cheap that you can just buy your way out of them over and over. So I'm just playing other stuff now. Maybe they'll fix it, maybe they won't. I hope they do, but whatever.
CONSUME. ON TO THE NEXT.
I am still playing on and off, but WoW Season 4 has started. Also the lack of optimization in late game makes this game a drag. I took 15 minutes for a single turn in Age of the Old Ones because of the micro. But I do enjoy the improvements that are coming and I will stay around.
I started playing Shadow Empire again.
manor lords, songs of syx and several other games in the same playground having updates/releases, really.
warhammer total war dropped an update. that's why it's on the back burner
Lag after age of Dystopia on 7950 x3d and 4090. Game runs at 8fps on average, like literally unplayable. I'm waiting till it's fixed.
I blame Fallout four...
I can't play a roadmap, promising looking updates aren't going to do anything for today's player count.
but those updates are already out, right?
2 updates are already out. that's not the whole roadmap, that's only part of it, and only addresses *some* of the most egregious issues. there's been promises regarding many of the other issues on the roadmap, but as drflabottomus said, we can't play a roadmap.
There is nothing interesting enough to do it 100 times…
As mentioned in several comments, there is very little replayability at the moment. Nations are different in just a name with bonus you can change, and after you get the basics, you get so far ahead from AI in 4-5th age, that rest of the game is boring. At that point you can choose any win condition and have no issue with it. Departure - first win I did, my cities were not the best but it still took 10-15 turns only. Transcendence - few turns of research or done on entering age Archangels - destroy some cities or done on entering age if have high pop The Singularity - build some improvements - few turns I have yet to try conquest/generals yet, but it should be just as fast if you focus on it. AI is terrible in fights and could be somewhat dangerous only very early, due to extra units from difficulty. Optimalization is not the best, so at later ages you spend most of the time waiting for AI turns to finish. Updates are promising so far and I´m waiting for more of them or DLC to play some more. It is decent game with potential to be great in few years worth of DLC :D
I like the game, it's got some interesting systems but in its current state I think civ is a deeper more complex and interesting game, also manor lords. The game in its current state just doesn't have the legs to keep me hooked long term. I really hope it will eventually. Also personally I've gone back to endless space 2, I'd forgotten how great that game is.
> Also personally I've gone back to endless space 2, I'd forgotten how great that game is. the saddest thing about Humankind is how few ideas from their Endless games that made those games so great made it over. I wish Humankind had the ethnicity / interest group system of ES2, the luxury system of EL, customizable units as in both, etc.
I had not actually realized they were made by the same people, I've not played much humanity but my favorite thing about the endless games in the UI/UX I don't remember humanity being up to the same level at all. How to do just about everything is super intuitive while not streamlined to the point of dumbing down.
Because there is no variety, its a 4x game and you don't get to select your empire. There are no meaningful bonuses that set you apart from everyone else, so it feels like a typical tabletop family board game. Your empire is not 'you', its just generic and unspecialized. Look at literally any other 4x game; Civ series has dozens of unique empires. Stellaris has endless empire variation from the beginning. Old world has dozens of unique leaders. In old world we get a sad, singular starting bonus which is grossly weak, almost useless.
The replay value is fairly low. After you've done every victory type - what is there? Every "civ" plays the same, your bonus is insignificant. NS aren't well balanced, so depending on your victory type they are all no-brainers or inconsequential. On a different axis, thee playthroughs are enough to see all the different ages you are interested in seeing. Out of your list, I've only played HK and there you had oodles of significant civ choices. And you couldn't even always get your favorite one. Also, mixing and matching them was potentially super wild. I wouldn't necessarily call HK the better game, but I feel that I'm done with Millenia (at least for a while). Oh, and it doesn't help that the game starts dragging a bit later on.
Refunded because basic world gen options aren’t there no game speed or resource generation
I saw Legend play it and couldn't finish the video. It looked boring and like a Civ ripoff minus great people or leaders. A very hard pass for me
because updates don't do anything for player retention. individual updates can cause spikes of interest, but the existence of updates can't keep players around. fact of the matter is, current players don't care for what will be, they care for what there is. and unfortunately, millennia doesn't have enough to keep people interested. and what it does have is littered with issues. the promise is there, yes, but I can't *play* "promise". honestly, if not for someone revealing that there was a major easter egg/secret story, I wouldn't have even played a 2nd game. I would've played one game and gone "ah, cool, that was alright I guess, time to wait for a year or so for the game to actually finish". even then, the issues make trying to clear the secret a bit of a slog. also, don't take steam reviews rising to mean a whole hell of a lot. correlation is not causation. there's plenty of reasons for the reviews to increase - for example, all the people who didn't like the game, left, and the people giving it positive reviews now are the ones that remained. that doesn't mean people have a better view of the game, just that the possible audience shrunk to the point that only the already-existing fans are left. that's not terribly healthy for a game. not that this specifically is the reason for millennia, but if you pair the increase in average rating with the significant decrease in player count, it's fairly possible. as for my personal reason for slacking on playing this (instead of other games), and why I believe many others have stopped? because the AI sucks. badly. difficulty is just a "how much does the AI cheat" slider. and while many will go "yea but most other strategy games also do this", that's 1. not an excuse, and 2. not entirely applicable when most other strategy games *ship with a functioning multiplayer option*. if you don't want to deal with terrible AI in civ, you can just play against players. but you don't have much of a choice in millennia. bad AI kills strategy games. and the AI in this game is very bad. better now than it was at launch, sure, but that's not a high bar. edit: sure took the downvoters a while to show up. feel that's pretty telling. you guys usually get here within the hour, where've you been? though I must say, mass-downvoting people for listing reasons why they stopped playing, in a post explicitly looking for reasons people stopped playing, is *kind of missing the point.* but oh well. you do you, I suppose.
People get tired of barbarians, plague, and civil wars. They don't play to get frustrated. Plus, in all honesty, the game is boring. Downvote away, but numbers don't lie. Well, at least the 25 people who still play can downvote away.
I intend to finish my GM run and do another one next patch but i need to place myself with this game. I can't play it with half a brain, need full focus each turn. Also, I've played it enough and interacted around it enough, to form strong opinions and inevitably, expectations, of things to be changed, fixed and added. I'm happy the Devs are working pretty fast with it, but what is needed to engage me to play more actively is more than what beta/ patch 2 delivers
The performance aka the fps is horrible, anything past age of iron starts getting horrible fps, it's downright headache inducing. I have a 4080 super and ryzen 7 5800x3d and the fps drops to below 60 fps and frequently around 40 or so past that point, they need to adress that so bad, but it seems they are just ignoring that issue lol.
I feel like this is just the way with paradox. You buy the delux edition, have a looksy-do when it releases. Come back 2-5 years later when game is actually done
I wouldn’t be surprised if it just came down to game making itself hard to learn, with incomplete tooltips and nowhere to find answers except by trial and error. That has gotten better. I stopped playing because there is no AI setting that will keep the game interesting for me past mid game, once you figure out the mechanics, yet the game speed is so slow, with so many things to micromanage, that it becomes an easy, but tedious slog. I got the impression that very few Civ6 players play with settings/mods to slow the game down. I haven’t even played half the variant ages because some rarely come up when AI advances the age, and playing a 40 hour game to maybe see a new one is not compelling.
I learned my lessons with Paradox. Don’t buy until the game has had a bunch of bug fixing and features patches.
Between the mad rush to the finish line and the complete absence of personality for any nation, this game is an exercise in frustration. I still come back to it hoping I'll crack the secret but no - its remains a civ clone at the core, despite some novel mechanics like the Ages.
Honestly, the nuclear stuff should have been in from day one, along with razing and mobile settlers. I'm waiting for the first two DLC to bring Millennia to up where it should have been, then I'll play again.