安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
Please, I only present facts, this game had a peak of 98k in the number of players at launch and today ... 49k peak in the day and now at the moment ... 38k.
More from what I see, many are waiting for a patch to fix the annoying things in the game. This is understandable as there are some very stupid things going on that can ruin your gameplay, especially if you are in iroman mode after an achievement.
Worth considering that today is a Monday and right now is night in Europe, where a lot of players are from. A lot of people also finished their campaigns already.
Look at the graph[steamdb.info] I posted earlier, it's literally the most played Paradox title.
https://playtracker.net/insight/game/59662
Shows an increase growth of players for this game.
Also, you are not really saying anything regarding people playing on XGamepass since we have no data on those.
Anyway, there are bugs yea, but this game is the highest played PDX game so far and by a very very very good margin. Facts.
your playing Imperator: Rome that has 300 playings online hahah
Indeed, the peak players from yesterday (a weekend, when everyone is off work and school) to today (a weekday) dropped by 22.9%. For EU4, the decrease was 16.8%. Not a huge difference, and I reckon we can attribute the difference largely to the standard trend for a new game after launch as the game starts weeding out the hardcore players from those who enjoyed it, but aren't going to play it obsessively.
Some other Sunday-to-Monday decrease numbers:
Total War Three Kingdoms: 14.4%
GTA5: 16.2%
But a newer game like Microsoft Flight Simulator: 25.3%
And Marvel's Avengers: 27.3%
We could probably get some valuable information from comparing relative numbers from two similar games not too far in time...like, CK2 vs CK3.
Let's say CK2 had 50k players shortly after launch, 40k one month later and 35k two more months later (I just made those numbers for an example). That's 20% immediate decline and around 33% decline in the first 3 months.
Let's say CK3 had 100k players shortly after launch, 70k one month later and 40k two more months later (again made up numbers). That's 30% immediate decline and around 60% decline in the first 3 months.
Should the number be real, we'd safely conclude that CK3, being a game of same genre and from same developer, is much worse perceived by the community, as it lost 60% of players after 3 months while CK2 only lost 30%.
That really puts things in perspective.
Except today is Monday. This is a strategy game, which also means people aren't picking it up and playing for 20-30 minutes generally. For me if I can't play for at least an hour, I won't even load it up. Work gets busy, life gets busy. Heck I may even go an entire week without loading it if life is hectic.
Doesn't mean anything. When you can start looking at monthly trends (and not just release month), then you can start to draw some conclusions if you really had to.
If anything the only conclusion I'd draw from this thread and these types of responses, is that you have entirely too much free time.
Possibly burn out. Playing the same game for a month would probably make some people develop ADD.
Good call! Let's see here...
Launch Day Peak: 2,466
Launch Week Peak: 3,158
Weekend Peak 20 Days Later: 2,100
20-Day Trend*: -33.5%
(*launch week to 20-day weekend peak)
Launch Day Peak: 141,439
Launch Week Peak: 141,439
Weekend Peak 20 Days Later: 10,654
20-Day Trend: -92.47%
Launch Day Peak: 97,008
Launch Week Peak: 98.872
Weekend Peak 20 Days Later: 64,121
20-Day Trend: -35.15%
-----
Thus far, it looks about as well received as CK2 was. Far moreso, if you're talking about the wider audience. 92% of the new players who played CK2 left after 20 days.
We can estimate at how many new players CK3 picked up, very loosely, by measuring CK3's launch week peak against the total reviews for CK2 and come up with 40,191. More than that number were still playing as of the 20-day weekend mark, while only a quarter of that were still playing CK2 after the F2P launch.
Another interesting statistic:
CK2 numbers three months after launch - the weekend just before May 14 of 2012 - were 1,484 despite a DLC release shortly before the mark. That's a 40% decrease from launch day, and a 53% decrease from the launch week peak. CK3 will have to be really poorly received to beat that rate of descent by a considerable margin.
We can use another measure of reception as well: User reviews during the first month after launch.
CK2 (initial launch month): 43 reviews, 93% positive
CK2 (F2P month): 463 reviews*, 85% positive
(*Steam excluded off-topic reivews)
CK3 (launch month): 14,885 reviews, 92% positive
To be fair you're... not supposed to do that. That's not the way prisoners worked in the middle ages.
Not unheard of, but very abnormal.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/medieval/happened-prisoners-war-medieval-england.html
https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/prisoners-war-hundred-years-war-podcast-captive-agincourt-battle/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war#Middle_Ages_and_Renaissance
Every such article I can find says nothing about executions or slaughter, apart from the fact that commoners were often put to the sword during crusades, and Muhammad would sometimes order the mass execution of male prisoners if and only if he felt they violated a treaty with the Muslims. I see very little evidence of executing captives in war.
Ransom was always, always preferable. In the rare cases when ransom wasn't possible, it seems bondage was the fate of most prisoners of war. Christians rarely even executed pagans; they were more likely to want to convert them. Pagans were generally open to this as long as the promise of gain was involved, so there'd be no reason to execute them outright.
Rebels were the one major exception. True to history, you don't get a tyranny penalty for executing a rebel. Even then, rebelling noblemen were often stripped of their titles and released rather than executed.