Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

After 2 weeks, 2.0 impact on players is low

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Imperator: Rome 9049 Bug Reports 3692 Suggestions 2399 User Mods 675 Tech Support 516 Multiplayer 56 After Action Report (AAR)
Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
Ziggarius said:
but Multiplayer is an absolutely disaster.
Click to expand...
That's a shame indeed

Lord Lambert said:
My mind is that these numbers mean absolutely nothing to you, nor to me, nor 99.99% of these forums, and you need to quit obsessing over them.
Click to expand...
If you care about Imperators future, we should care about - just hoping paradox will develop Imperator forever even if the player base is...not big, is naive

I hope to be taught better

Vernichtere said:
Interesting are only the sales of the game and DLC: Its not a MMO.
Click to expand...
i think there is a connection between the number of players and the number of dlcs sold
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
maxk94 said:
If you care about Imperators future
Click to expand...
Of course I do. I pinned my flag to this title a while back and have made thousands of hours of content for it, both to advertise it and suggestions to improve it. One can care about the course of the game without doomposting about player numbers. What I do actually makes a difference, this thread has made none.
 
  • 11
  • 3Like
Reactions:
SeekTruthFromFx said:
From my observations it's common PDX practice that hotfixes (n.n.n releases), and patches paired with a DLC, do not have open betas. I have seen the latter attributed to worries about people pirating/not paying for the DLC content, though I am not personally convinced by this since the patch needs to work without the DLC anyway. Full patches (n.n releases) without a DLC are typically preceded by open betas, though it's a tendency, not a rule. I:R hasn't had open betas for a while, probably because the full patches have all had Content Packs attached. In my view that's probably a good thing as it means the company has had some revenue without the restrictions on future development that would be imposed by full Expansions. EUIV and Stellaris have had a steady 'tick-tock' of patches with and without DLC, so we see more open betas there.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about 2.0 of Imperator not having open beta as you claim and then explain why they do not, I was not asking for a beta of 2.0 patch for Imperator either please pay attention to what I was asking for.

We are currently on 2.0.1 with no beta patch of 2.0.2 to help iron out fixes. This is different from Stellaris where they will often have the current hotfix out, and give us access to the NEXT hot fix as a beta branch to test immediately. 2.0.1 Imperator works well for singleplayer, but for multiplayer? We have come up with a list of things to avoid to do, and even when we avoid doing those things, it still goes out of sync on an hourly basis practically. That is unplayable.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
maxk94 said:
i'm just the bearer of bad news - there is no thread in forum that could bring a massive amounts of players back directly
Click to expand...
"I'm just the bearer of the bad news that is that the 2.0 patch has come alongside a 300% increase in active users"

Get a grip.
 
  • 9
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
This is absolutely hilarious. Thanks for bringing some sorely needed quarantine entertainment, Max. I'm usually not a big fan of trolling, but I'll take the laughs where I can get them.

But on a more serious note: perhaps you should care less about how many people play this game and focus more on playing it yourself, considering how it's your favorite PDX game and all that. This obsession about whether or not people agree with you or not is coming off as kind of wierd, especially considering how you've failed to make a single contribution or suggestion so far.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Limbojack said:
But on a more serious note: perhaps you should care less about how many people play this game and focus more on playing it yourself, considering how it's your favorite PDX game and all that.
Click to expand...
I've ~2,2k hours played, ~130h since 2.0 release. I published a balance mod, i always try to convince my friends of the game. I made them hot for 2.0 Multiplayer

Desynch

Sorry that I'm a little thin-skinned
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Looks great, retention looks great too. Why include ck3 just to fluff the numbers?

1614806393709.png
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Having a look at telemetry is always nice, IR is one of the few paradox games that actually still interests me. And that's because I really admire the development team of IR. Sometimes I wonder if these threads get posted to be atagonistic towards the players that do really like this game. Then again, just assuming it's done in 'bad faith' doesn't help either.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
We must have different definitions of fanboy. To me, a fanboy would defend every decision and direction that the game or the company makes, and I think the evidence shows that that just is not me. I regularly criticise, suggest changes to improve, downright state I do not like certain things. None of these are the actions of a fanboy.

Hell, I actually do think player numbers are important and something *for the right people* to be worried about... You are not, in any way shape or form, the right people. Nor am I. Nor is anyone in this thread. Thats where the difference lies. Player numbers mean nothing to you. They mean nothing to the people you are "bearing the bad news" to. What you are doing is incredibly useless. The people to whom player numbers are important are already well aware of what those player numbers are, with a degree of accuracy that far surpasses what you find on steamspy or whatever that site is called.
 
  • 6Like
  • 4
Reactions:
Miganto said:
Looks great, retention looks great too. Why include ck3 just to fluff the numbers?
Click to expand...
CK3 is there because it's paradox' newest game while Victoria 2 is there because it's the oldest games of active franchises
CK2 is there because it's the last old version of the newest game of paradox.

The 2yo Imperator just compare with 9yo CK2 and 11yo victoria2 seems a bit unfair to me.

I could also compare 2yo Imperator with the 5yo Stellaris and Hoi4 - but this makes it even worse.
 
Weak argument OP. 2.0 has been very well received and boosted numbers. After the launch disaster Imperator was never going to have an overnight comeback and receive numbers like CK3 or HoI4. It will take some time for momentum to build up. Goodwill is a hard thing to earn back, but after a year + of efforts the team is starting to do just that. Watch this space and come back in another year and tell us the same thing, silly billy.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
maxk94 said:
CK3 is there because it's paradox' newest game while Victoria 2 is there because it's the oldest games of active franchises
CK2 is there because it's the last old version of the newest game of paradox.

The 2yo Imperator just compare with 9yo CK2 and 11yo victoria2 seems a bit unfair to me.

I could also compare 2yo Imperator with the 5yo Stellaris and Hoi4 - but this makes it even worse.
Click to expand...
That's irrelevant - how it compares to other games wasn't the point of your thread by your own title.

Your point is "2.0 impact on players is low" - that's a false claim - the players went up 600% and are still 400% above what the numbers were steadily at for months - that means 2.0 was very positively impactful.

Imperator, ck and eu are all different flavours of 'grand strategy', you can't compare them. CK3 also had a huge influx from its predecessor, you can see this by the huge drop off in usage.

If I ever released an update to anything i did in life and had a 600% growth with 400% retention after a month, that would be considered a pay-rise moment.
 
  • 8
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I dont think this means all that much, as long as the devs arent forced to drop it to prioritize more popular games. You talk about the players on EU4, but how many were there on release, or 2 or 3 years after? Am I wrong that this is the hottest Paradox gsg has ever been? I feel like just a few years ago I never saw anything about these games except on dedicated forums, but now theyre a fairly popular niche genre in themselves.

I think that as long as Imperator keeps getting good work done on it, there's nothing stopping it from blowing up a year or so down the line from now. I mean, it's Rome, it's a wildly popular setting. If it's developed up to its potential, even if it hovers around 500-1k players there's no reason it can't pick up a ton of EU4 and CK3 players if later big updates are promoted right.
 
Its still capitalism. Of course i would love to have a other economy, but it's the way right now. Sales rule in the first way. So far i understand the update performed well enough. I like the patch so i bought this small DLC which i dont need that much. Other people did it too. And the player numbers? We see numbers people constantly playing. These are not always the same people.

We already know the team is working on a a short patch which will come in the next weeks. Then it will the normal way around paradox games. You will wait for the next patch in combination with the DLC: When you like the patch you should buy the DLC. I am not happy with stellaris right now, so i skipped the last DLC. Its the only way to say if a game performs well or not. Devs try to finance further patches with DLcs. In the old days they would just make Stellaris IV or Imperator II right now.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Reader mode
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back