PC Death Penalty Poll
- Thread starter Roland
- Start date
Poojam
Refugee
Judging by the removal of that negative review from the steam store that madmole commented on, which was not flattering for his company, I'd say I might be making a dent.
Trying to get in touch with the owner to see if he removed it voluntarily or it got removed "for him." Will report back if/when I learn anything.
- - - Updated - - -
Also. The death penalty has been cut in half. So, I'm halfway there.
And yet you think you Can compare A16E and A17E. Even thought difference in changes to the core game is colossal. A16 only added to existing game mechanics, which didnt really require alot of gameplay and testing. On the other hand, A17e is so different, that devs and mods recommend veterans to relearn the game.
Roland
Community Moderator
I'm not making a comparison of content or composition between A16e and A17e. I'm making a comparison of number of concurrent players during November of 2018 and June of 2017. If the numbers in November (when A17e released) were the same or less than the June numbers (when A16e released) that could indicate a lessening of interest despite a new update. But the fact that we exceeded it is good news in my mind and shows that the game is still growing and there is still plenty of interest.
I think the two months are comparable because they are both months in which an experimental build that only players who are in the know could opt into and play. Yes the two builds are very different. We will have to wait and see over the next few months whether the differences in A17 are generally well received (The numbers stay at current levels or improve) or not (the numbers fall back to A16 levels of the past six months or lower).
enragedcamel
Refugee
There already is a reward for that. It advances the gamestage and the game gets harder.
Roland
Community Moderator
I can't joke about the tone of the forums over the past week? You realize that joke was about the forum atmosphere itself and not really about you right? If you want a serious and stern moderator I invite you to participate in the Red Cross forums where I'm sure topics of true gravity are had. Around here we just discuss video games that cost $25 except when they cost $9...
As was my old point to you in another thread, the one of the reasons why more ppl feel like they have to play this experimental, is because they have to relearn new mechanics, which takes more playhours, than just joining creative and testing few new additions for a16. Imho, comparing a16E and a17E numbers is just unfair. Same as comparing a16 stable and a17E. In both comparisons, we have completely different conditions. Which makes any results irrelevant, or, at least, irrelevant for what are you testing for, aka how interested are players in new alpha. Since to many factors are skewed in favour of A17E.
Depending on how much weight you give those factors, you might either be happy with how many players are playing right now, or worry, why not as many, as you would have expected, are playing right now.
Last edited by a moderator:
Roland
Community Moderator
If we hit 41K+ with A17 stable I could care less why it happened. I'll just be super glad and give deserved kudos to TFP for a job well done. Regardless of the why, creating a game and developing it over the years and being able to attract that many people to even just give it a try is more than I have ever been able to do. So it seems pretty impressive to me.
And if I find oil under my house, Ill be rich. We can't really build statistics on "if" right? Im just pointing out, that in this exact moment. Any numbers you have on a17E are mostly irrelevant, cause to many factors are different to how they were at a16e.
And even in your "if" situation, things could turn gloomy pretty fast, with all those 41k people losing interest in the next month. Just another "if" situation, you might say.
Can't really pat somebody on the back for shorttime success. Longterm is what counts and later gives a brand popularity. Dont really want to follow F76 and nomanssky, right? Not saying this game would turn out as bad. But it has the potential, if simplification of core mechanics would continue.
//My main worry are claims and viability of big buildings tho. For me, its like 80% of the game cut off.
pApA^LeGBa
Hunter
207 votes deceide. That´s way too less. There is like 20, 25K online at once. I guess at least 50K playing overall, propably more. Not even close to be representative. Way under 1%. not even 0.5%.
It´s good that there is a poll. Kudos to TFP for that. But if you want real results you gotta do in game votes.
It´s good that there is a poll. Kudos to TFP for that. But if you want real results you gotta do in game votes.
OzHawkeye
Community Moderator
Decisions are made by those who show up.
Apparently Aaron Sorkin coined it for "The West Wing", and it's a pretty good saying. I'm not suggesting that TFP should take this community's word as gospel, but I doubt an in-game questionnaire is going to go down too well either. Ultimately, good, bad or indifferent, these forums represent one of the major player<->Dev contact points.
LuckyStar
Refugee
Thing is, you both are right in this instance.
Roland:
- Interest in a game can come from many factors and right now there is increased interest.
Sergoros:
- Each build has a life cycle and comparing the late 16 stage to early 17 isn't apple and apples.
The true test of long term interest of A17 compared to A16 will be when we see a late stage A17 and compare those numbers.
At least... this would seem to be the case..... but is it?
If you want to go by that logic then we can NEVER compare the two because A17 has many unique factors.
- Engine Update
- VERY long development time
- Overhaul of game play mechanics
- Overhaul of internal mechanics
- Essentially a new game
A18 is not likely to see such a long wait time and thus the life cycle of A17 is going to be much shorter than A16.
This is just one of the many ways in which the two builds are completely different.
In the end what we can extrapolate is that we are seeing a rise in concurrent players and it doesn't matter why.
The fact is, they are playing and that's a good, healthy sign.
Will it hold up? We'll see.
I get what you're saying Sergoros, that we can't assume this is concrete proof that A17 is a success based on a comparison.
I also get that Roland is simply saying "here's the numbers now compared to another date when we saw player interest high and for now that's a good sign, irregardless of the reason why.
At least that's how I'm seeing it.