Why PVP would benefit DE (not a rework conclave post)

[SneakyErvin]

3 hours ago, Remy_Lacroix said:

You yourself used 200K on PC as an example (which i'd rather see as a believable value since warframe's all time peak on steam charts is ~132K) and that's exactly why i doubled down on that, to make up for the rest of consoles. However, if you arbitrarily talk about 4-5 millions without proof of it, that's barely 10% of the created accounts based on a value given months ago (42 Millions and growing), which still says that warframe's player retention is awful.

All of what you say here just means you have little knowledge about it all.

First, when figuring out player numbers you tend to look at release date or popularity. This tend to give a game a multiplier of 10 to 20 that is used in conjunction with the concurrent players. WF is on the popular side to say the least, so x20 wouldnt be odd to use. With 200k concurrent users on PC you end up with 4 million or so active PC accounts. Add console to that and I'd expect somewhere between 6 or 7 million active players.

That is far from awful player retention if you have any clue whatsoever regarding gaming. We are also talking about a F2P game here, a business model many people ditch within the first few minutes or simply register an account (or several for) which increases the total number of registered users with ghost accounts. I've done this in a few F2P game myself, just in SWL I created 5 or so accounts in order to start over. So the retention numbers for WF are very healthy.

[Remy_Lacroix]

hace 37 minutos, SneakyErvin dijo:

All of what you say here just means you have little knowledge about it all.

First, when figuring out player numbers you tend to look at release date or popularity. This tend to give a game a multiplier of 10 to 20 that is used in conjunction with the concurrent players. WF is on the popular side to say the least, so x20 wouldnt be odd to use. With 200k concurrent users on PC you end up with 4 million or so active PC accounts. Add console to that and I'd expect somewhere between 6 or 7 million active players.

That is far from awful player retention if you have any clue whatsoever regarding gaming. We are also talking about a F2P game here, a business model many people ditch within the first few minutes or simply register an account (or several for) which increases the total number of registered users with ghost accounts. I've done this in a few F2P game myself, just in SWL I created 5 or so accounts in order to start over. So the retention numbers for WF are very healthy.

Even tough these 7 millions of active players you're suddenly pullimg out if nowhere is a lot, however, 7 out of 40 millions is still a retention of barely 17.5% of the players who have ever created an account, and that's being generous and assuming that no more accounts have been created after the time when they reached these 40 millions which iirc was a while ago.

And now since you keep throwing numbers around i would really like to know what are your sources not only for the concurrent players but also for these arbitrary measures of popularity and random multipliers that atm seem to be pulled out of nowhere in an attempt to sustain an argument where the more you write the most desperate you look.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Remy_Lacroix

[(PSN)Darth-Escar]

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

All of what you say here just means you have little knowledge about it all.

First, when figuring out player numbers you tend to look at release date or popularity. This tend to give a game a multiplier of 10 to 20 that is used in conjunction with the concurrent players. WF is on the popular side to say the least, so x20 wouldnt be odd to use. With 200k concurrent users on PC you end up with 4 million or so active PC accounts. Add console to that and I'd expect somewhere between 6 or 7 million active players.

That is far from awful player retention if you have any clue whatsoever regarding gaming. We are also talking about a F2P game here, a business model many people ditch within the first few minutes or simply register an account (or several for) which increases the total number of registered users with ghost accounts. I've done this in a few F2P game myself, just in SWL I created 5 or so accounts in order to start over. So the retention numbers for WF are very healthy.

It seems like you're accounting for alt accounts in total accounts, yet not for active accounts. From what I've seen, most players have 1 or 2 active accounts for their main platform, plus 1 for each other platform they play on. (Just as an example, I personally have 5 accounts. 2 active PS4 ones, 1 active Xbox account, 1 inactive for Switch (unless I find a better controller), and 1 inactive for PC (until my PC is fixed).) If I had to estimate an active player count, based on say 6.5 mil active accounts across all platforms, I'd have to guess around 2-2.5mil. Granted, that is just a guess based on my experience. I'd be highly inclined to believe an estimate, if all of the info used is shown to be based on sources that have good reason to believe. Otherwise there isn't much reason to consider any specific possible estimation to be most accurate.

[MJ12]

6 hours ago, Remy_Lacroix said:

You yourself used 200K on PC as an example (which i'd rather see as a believable value since warframe's all time peak on steam charts is ~132K) and that's exactly why i doubled down on that, to make up for the rest of consoles. However, if you arbitrarily talk about 4-5 millions without proof of it, that's barely 10% of the created accounts based on a value given months ago (42 Millions and growing), which still says that warframe's player retention is awful.

10% player retention is actually really good for a F2P game.

The average 3-month player retention for a F2P game is 4%.

https://www.apptentive.com/blog/2015/04/09/the-data-behind-customer-acquisition-and-retention-for-f2p-mobile-games/

I use mobile games because mobile games are primarily where you find F2P games and where F2P has been a common practice for a good long while, i.e. there's much more statistical data on it.

7 hours ago, (XB1)Dark SalvationX said:

It depends on the age group generally, fortnight is a childs game, easy difficulty attracts more young players while a much harder to play game will have older smarter players. but if more pvp players come to wf its still more people more money to de more content for you savage AI slayers..

A real pvp/pve mode would not hurt your pve experience in warfame if you choose not to play the pvp witch i assumeyou do already... Unless anyone besides you getting there way is to much to ask.

 

I've heard this again and again about how a "real pvp/pve mode would not hurt your pve experience" but one can simply look at Destiny 2 to see how little truth there is to that.

You have pages and pages of evidence on how the "real pvp mode" destroyed the PvE experience by dumpstering weapons because they were overpowered in PvP without being a problem in PvE. Meanwhile you can look at the total number of nerfs which happened as a result of things being too overpowered in PvE and you can count them with your fingers. Why is this?

It's actually pretty simple. PvP is naturally louder and more contentious than PvE because if your PvE content is reasonably balanced so that an average player can experience all of it with minimal frustration but feel like they're being challenged, something overpowered will just make them feel a little more powerful while something underpowered will just make them feel a little weaker but still leave them capable of contributing and adding to a group. You have to be an incredibly bad player to be a net negative in PvE gameplay-and I don't think it's a coincidence that game modes like raids, where it's actually possible for a player to be a net detriment, are also the PvE mode which generates the most salt and elitism.

That same loudness and contentiousness leads to a lot more complaints about balance, because when something is imbalanced in PvP it's actually reducing other people's fun, rather than simply making some people more effective than others. This means that PvP discussion, in a game where PvP has significant playtime and is heavily encouraged (which PvPers seem to want), tends to end up dominating the discussion and creating a very distorted image of balance changes and how a game should be played. This is despite how PvPers are often a tiny minority of players. Starcraft 2, which was known for and made famous for its incredibly high-profile competitive scene, is a game where cooperative games are played more often than all PvP and other custom game modes (which also includes some co-op) combined: 

And that doesn't include the people who just played the campaign and never touched multiplayer ever, which is a non-trivial number of players. Yet you wouldn't know this if you read Starcraft balance discussions, which are entirely dominated by the PvP gameplay and PvP metas.

Unless PvP is basically shoved into its own balancing niche and deliberately treated as a second-class system to be provided less attention, as Warframe does, PvP metas, and the responses to PvP metas, rapidly dominate the game and become a determinant of changes to that game-as Destiny 2 showed. Bungie is also an extremely good developer with regards to understanding shooter balance while Warframe demonstrates DE... isn't so much. If Bungie couldn't figure out how to make players feel powerful in PvE and PvP while also ensuring that PvP changes didn't dumpster PvE gameplay without an unreasonable expenditure of resources, why do people think DE is going to be able to do it?

[chainchompguy3]

Throwing in my cents

 

Warframe is a patchwork game. Just about anything can be stitched onto it, and it'll be "Warframe".

Whatever DE or the Community gets passionate about, DE is likely willing to oblige.

I see no reason why more/better PVP would be impossible or unreasonable to add. Just another square on the quilt.

 

 

That being said, though, it is my personal preference that I be able to continue having absolutely nothing to do with it.

It must continue to function only to serve itself: PVP rewards work only in PVP, PVP balance changes only affect PVP.

I'd also like to add that PVP as it has been so far, as a PVP version of the game with most of the same mechanics, is to me, a hot pile of garbage. Parkour 2.0 was not made for it, IMO.

and if I'm being totally honest, I'd prefer that any development for a main-stream PVP mode be handled similarly to DE's other attempt at a PVP game, The Amazing Eternals: entirely separate Dev teams, with "traditional PVE warframe" not having to give up development hands. (But then we have to ask if the hypothetical PVP mode should be a MODE at all, and not just an entirely separate game, that just shares the Intellectual Property).

 

One last thing, I see lots of people bringing up streamers and "Pulling in a larger audience, tap into the Twitch-PVP-Spectator-crowd".

Please, stop.

That crowd is not the type to stick with warframe, through it's bugginess, to become fans forevermore.

They are a fickle bunch that tend to merely chase the newest trend.

Measuring a PVP mode by how much of that crowd it can pull in is a very short-sighted goal.

[Remy_Lacroix]

hace 33 minutos, MJ12 dijo:

10% player retention is actually really good for a F2P game.

The average 3-month player retention for a F2P game is 4%.

Even then, the main point is that he keeps pulling out imaginary numbers and arbitrarily multiplies them by values taken out of nowhere for no reason otjer than to achieve that "really" good value. I'm yet to see any actual proof of warfarm's player retention being as good as you (both) claim.

[(PSN)Darth-Escar]

53 minutes ago, MJ12 said:

10% player retention is actually really good for a F2P game.

The average 3-month player retention for a F2P game is 4%.

https://www.apptentive.com/blog/2015/04/09/the-data-behind-customer-acquisition-and-retention-for-f2p-mobile-games/

I use mobile games because mobile games are primarily where you find F2P games and where F2P has been a common practice for a good long while, i.e. there's much more statistical data on it.

10% might be really good for a mobile F2P, but I'm pretty sure most people have mass-downloaded mobile F2Ps, just to pass time on the go and discard, especially with their usual lack of quality and depth, along with how simple and similar they are. Free games on PC, PS4, Xbox have a lot more variety and quality though, along with less competition in terms of quantity in the case of consoles.

In response to the rest of your post, Warframe already has separate stats and mods for PVP. This means PVP balance changes don't have to affect PVE at all. Besides that, it actually shouldn't be very difficult to balance PVE gear to be suited for PVP. The bulk of general balance issues I see in the game are the result of glitches or enegy mechanics. Rhino's Roar is a great example of the former. People who know about its bug can make it a rouhly 30x damage boost, and that's not even the most broken. I think most people understand the energy issue, or at least can see it with a bit of thought. How are energy costs supposed to balance abilites when we have stuff like Zenurik, Energize, EV and such exist? It can sometimes be difficult to run out of energy. If those 2 overall issues are gotten rid of, things are quite well balanced, with some obvious outliers, like Nova and Vectis Prime. (Also most melee, but it's not worthwhile to account for their current states with the upcoming rework.)

Of course, PVE gear balance for PVP is quite a vast topic. A list of gear which may or may not be imbalannced would be very large, and synergy between gear with anything remotely specieal about them would alco be difficult to cover, especially in the context of the game mode. I still think it could all be balanced in a way that satisfies most people, but simply put...

If this doesn't turn out the be the main issue with the mode's practicality, it's probably not worth anyone's time to go through it all, considering the amount of possibly good loadouts to compare.

[MJ12]

31 minutes ago, Remy_Lacroix said:

Even then, the main point is that he keeps pulling out imaginary numbers and arbitrarily multiplies them by values taken out of nowhere for no reason otjer than to achieve that "really" good value. I'm yet to see any actual proof of warfarm's player retention being as good as you (both) claim.

You were the one who first insisted, without proof, that Warframe's player retention must be terrible because only a fraction of the people who have accounts play it at any time.

Also, frankly, if you cared about player retention rates you wouldn't be talking about PvP or endgame or the usual topics people talk about when they discuss player retention rates. Player retention is about keeping new players interested in your game for a significant period of time. If people were concerned about Warframe not living up to its potential because of low player retention, and were honest about it, they'd be talking about the one-month and three-month critical periods-i.e. early game.

Instead it's all about raids, more challenge, endgame, PvP, things that are suggested by players who are not a retention problem because they're part of the demographic which despite how much they complain is disproportionately dedicated to the game and not likely to quit.

BTW: I went looking for more information, and someone has information on F2P MMOs in specific.

https://www.superdataresearch.com/understanding-mmo-retention/

The expected average player retention rate for a F2P MMO like Warframe is absolutely minuscule. Warframe losing the majority of its registered players to churn is not just reasonable, but expected.

[MJ12]

12 minutes ago, (PS4)Darth-Escar said:

10% might be really good for a mobile F2P, but I'm pretty sure most people have mass-downloaded mobile F2Ps, just to pass time on the go and discard, especially with their usual lack of quality and depth, along with how simple and similar they are. Free games on PC, PS4, Xbox have a lot more variety and quality though, along with less competition in terms of quantity in the case of consoles.

In response to the rest of your post, Warframe already has separate stats and mods for PVP. This means PVP balance changes don't have to affect PVE at all. Besides that, it actually shouldn't be very difficult to balance PVE gear to be suited for PVP. The bulk of general balance issues I see in the game are the result of glitches or enegy mechanics. Rhino's Roar is a great example of the former. People who know about its bug can make it a rouhly 30x damage boost, and that's not even the most broken. I think most people understand the energy issue, or at least can see it with a bit of thought. How are energy costs supposed to balance abilites when we have stuff like Zenurik, Energize, EV and such exist? It can sometimes be difficult to run out of energy. If those 2 overall issues are gotten rid of, things are quite well balanced, with some obvious outliers, like Nova and Vectis Prime. (Also most melee, but it's not worthwhile to account for their current states with the upcoming rework.)

Of course, PVE gear balance for PVP is quite a vast topic. A list of gear which may or may not be imbalannced would be very large, and synergy between gear with anything remotely specieal about them would alco be difficult to cover, especially in the context of the game mode. I still think it could all be balanced in a way that satisfies most people, but simply put...

If this doesn't turn out the be the main issue with the mode's practicality, it's probably not worth anyone's time to go through it all, considering the amount of possibly good loadouts to compare.

Warframe has separate stats and mods for PvP, yes. But as you might have guessed this is specifically because DE is treating PvP as a second-class gamemode, more of a minigame than something they expect people to seriously engage in. They can silo off PvP as if it was a minigame simply because they currently treat it as a minigame.

Games which want to emphasize both PvE and PvP (which the idea of a PvP 'endgame' or encouraging PvP streamers to play Warframe would require) can't really afford to do this, because then weapons and gameplay drastically changes from PvP and PvE and the gamefeel becomes offputting when you basically have to get used to playing two games which have different characteristics that mess with the game's feel and your muscle memory. 

Again, Bungie knows how to design good shooters. They aren't stupid, they clearly understand that if you make weapons feel the same in PvP and PvE you run the risk of screwing up one gamemode to balance another. But yet, they ended up doing what they did for a reason.

Like, people talk up how you could totally have more PvP in Warframe without ruining PvE as a result because PvP and PvE use completely different stats, but they also don't realize that the reason Warframe can have PvP and PvE modes with totally different stats is because PvP is relegated to obscurity.

[Kontrollo]

Alright, more things to debunk, I guess.

I hope I'm getting the main point with this partial quote here (if not let me know):

2 hours ago, MJ12 said:

...

Unless PvP is basically shoved into its own balancing niche and deliberately treated as a second-class system to be provided less attention, as Warframe does, PvP metas, and the responses to PvP metas, rapidly dominate the game and become a determinant of changes to that game-as Destiny 2 showed. Bungie is also an extremely good developer with regards to understanding shooter balance while Warframe demonstrates DE... isn't so much. ...

But first of let's clear up something where I'm not sure we're on the same page. Conclave weapon damage stats are separate from PvE. Regular guns have a simple multiplier on the damage, more exotic ones some other adjustments. There are neither random procs nor crits. Headshot multipliers differ by weapon class. At least that was the case when I played it.

There's no problem with Conclave being a side show, and it was pretty well balanced for a side show. There's a problem when things fall into disarray and there's a problem with people who keep misrepresenting things, however. Which has been the case around here since... the start.

Now my question: where exactly did DE demonstrate they do not understand shooter balance? Of course I hope we're not talking about PvE, that'd be ridiculous.

 

2 hours ago, chainchompguy3 said:

I'd also like to add that PVP as it has been so far, as a PVP version of the game with most of the same mechanics, is to me, a hot pile of garbage. Parkour 2.0 was not made for it, IMO.

I can of course not know what your specific reason for saying this is. But for myself, Conclave was the answer to the question: "Do you actually want to be a space ninja?"

I've linked some footage earlier (that got made after my time playing it), but the thread has moved past those pretty quickly.

 

2 hours ago, chainchompguy3 said:

and if I'm being totally honest, I'd prefer that any development for a main-stream PVP mode be handled similarly to DE's other attempt at a PVP game, The Amazing Eternals

And here's the reason why I'm bothering to post at all: hot damn they did? What a shame, I didn't even know and wasn't around for that.

 

Edit: @MJ12 You've posted some more between the time I read and quoted from that one post. I'd actually like having a conversation with someone where my bullS#&$ detector doesn't start making these weird noises all the time, so you'd have my attention.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Kontrollo

[TheFinalEpic]

6 hours ago, Kontrollo said:

Alright, more things to debunk, I guess.

I hope I'm getting the main point with this partial quote here (if not let me know):

But first of let's clear up something where I'm not sure we're on the same page. Conclave weapon damage stats are separate from PvE. Regular guns have a simple multiplier on the damage, more exotic ones some other adjustments. There are neither random procs nor crits. Headshot multipliers differ by weapon class. At least that was the case when I played it.

There's no problem with Conclave being a side show, and it was pretty well balanced for a side show. There's a problem when things fall into disarray and there's a problem with people who keep misrepresenting things, however. Which has been the case around here since... the start.

Now my question: where exactly did DE demonstrate they do not understand shooter balance? Of course I hope we're not talking about PvE, that'd be ridiculous.

 

I can of course not know what your specific reason for saying this is. But for myself, Conclave was the answer to the question: "Do you actually want to be a space ninja?"

I've linked some footage earlier (that got made after my time playing it), but the thread has moved past those pretty quickly.

 

And here's the reason why I'm bothering to post at all: hot damn they did? What a shame, I didn't even know and wasn't around for that.

 

Edit: @MJ12 You've posted some more between the time I read and quoted from that one post. I'd actually like having a conversation with someone where my bullS#&$ detector doesn't start making these weird noises all the time, so you'd have my attention.

16 hours ago, demoxis said:

I've said all that needs to be said. You can't be convinced what we want friend. You have these embedded preconceptions concerning what this game is/was/will be and that's ok. We who enjoy pvp will continue protesting to DE to get some love tossed in our direction as we have come to know. 

After my last reply I was actually going to self report my own post to be deleted since it clearly got out of hand with PVP posters like you guys pushing their own agenda by manipulating opinions into facts but I'm glad it's out of the eyes of General discussion  (where most people go to the forum) since it got moved to this Conclave post where it can be self contained into an echo chamber.

 

You are right that you have your own opinions and what you want for the game, and you are also right that other players have the right as well to their own opinions and what they want for the game.

 

But I'm going to be aggressive toward you since you have been aggressive toward everybody who not in support of PVP and say that you make up a very very small portion of the player base and no matter how much you try to say other wise that you are this massive support and sustainable player base, you don't. No matter how much you say "that chart is 2 years old, you are throwing misinformation" The fact of the matter is the player base of PVP is not sustainable at all. No matter how much you deny that fact.

 

 DE will not cater to you compared to the larger player base.

 

I pointed out issues with PVP but you still try to counter it with basically saying it's fine ,great even, you just need skill, or they  just need to remake the entire thing, or they just need to add new modes. You guys actively attack people who don't support PVP and their side and has no consideration for them. And I understand this because what they say will essentially is the opposite of what you want, but why do you think then that there are people who are oppose you as well?

 

When my thread was in general discussion, the upvotes and likes on that PVP is not something that DE should work on outnumbered the ones in support of PVP. There is your answer for a random poll of the general populace feelings on the matter. The moment it got moved to this echo chambers, all posts after my posts got up voted (only by 1 or 2, compared to the  20-30 upvotes of the main thread that supported non PVP).

 

This is the last time I'll reply to this and even read anything from this. You guys can definitely argue all day but it will be an echo chamber that will MOST LIKELY not be read by DE.

 

Have fun those who enjoy pvp, continue to protest DE pvp to get some love in your direction. I hope you for the best though I do not see a bright outcome for you.

Edited January 19, 2019 by TheFinalEpic

[----Legacy----]

1 hour ago, TheFinalEpic said:

After my last reply I was actually going to self report my own post to be deleted since it clearly got out of hand with PVP posters like you guys pushing their own agenda by manipulating opinions into facts but I'm glad it's out of the eyes of General discussion  (where most people go to the forum) since it got moved to this Conclave post where it can be self contained into an echo chamber.

 

You are right that you have your own opinions and what you want for the game, and you are also right that other players have the right as well to their own opinions and what they want for the game.

 

But I'm going to be aggressive toward you since you have been aggressive toward everybody who not in support of PVP and say that you make up a very very small portion of the player base and no matter how much you try to say other wise that you are this massive support and sustainable player base, you don't. No matter how much you say "that chart is 2 years old, you are throwing misinformation" The fact of the matter is the player base of PVP is not sustainable at all. No matter how much you deny that fact.

 

 DE will not cater to you compared to the larger player base.

 

I pointed out issues with PVP but you still try to counter it with basically saying it's fine ,great even, you just need skill, or they  just need to remake the entire thing, or they just need to add new modes. You guys actively attack people who don't support PVP and their side and has no consideration for them. And I understand this because what they say will essentially is the opposite of what you want, but why do you think then that there are people who are oppose you as well?

 

When my thread was in general discussion, the upvotes and likes on that PVP is not something that DE should work on outnumbered the ones in support of PVP. There is your answer for a random poll of the general populace feelings on the matter. The moment it got moved to this echo chambers, all posts after my posts got up voted (only by 1 or 2, compared to the  20-30 upvotes of the main thread that supported non PVP).

TLDR: you created a post against PvP in general discussion with the sole purpose of spreading misinformation as an upvote farm in an echo chamber, but now won't reply anymore since it was moved out of there and people who can take down your points with actual information about the game mode and counterarguments got increased and the upvote farm stopped working, so will just scream "hivemind!" While claiming that you are under attack (despite the "attack" being started by you) and run away without looking back.

[SneakyErvin]

18 hours ago, Remy_Lacroix said:

Even tough these 7 millions of active players you're suddenly pullimg out if nowhere is a lot, however, 7 out of 40 millions is still a retention of barely 17.5% of the players who have ever created an account, and that's being generous and assuming that no more accounts have been created after the time when they reached these 40 millions which iirc was a while ago.

And now since you keep throwing numbers around i would really like to know what are your sources not only for the concurrent players but also for these arbitrary measures of popularity and random multipliers that atm seem to be pulled out of nowhere in an attempt to sustain an argument where the more you write the most desperate you look.

A retention over 10% is silly good. It is even good for a B2P or sub based game. 10% is what you usually look at as a success for a game a few months after release. WF was at 38m during July 2018, so not that long ago.

And the numbers I keep "throwing" are just simple numbers used by pretty much every game company out there. They've been here since the dawn of MMOs, when people started to get interested in how big the active communities were. It is what they call a trend(?), an applicable figure to any type of game community to get rough estimates on the active number of players. If you've been around just a little you'll notice these numbers popping up in every game on either one end or the other of a scale.

edit: And you are asking for some proof when you dont even grasp the concept of what concurrent numbers mean to begin with. Why should I even bother when you dont even have basic understanding how how player numbers work or what percentages are to be expected regarding retention in online games (or games in general for that matter).

16 hours ago, (PS4)Darth-Escar said:

It seems like you're accounting for alt accounts in total accounts, yet not for active accounts. From what I've seen, most players have 1 or 2 active accounts for their main platform, plus 1 for each other platform they play on. (Just as an example, I personally have 5 accounts. 2 active PS4 ones, 1 active Xbox account, 1 inactive for Switch (unless I find a better controller), and 1 inactive for PC (until my PC is fixed).) If I had to estimate an active player count, based on say 6.5 mil active accounts across all platforms, I'd have to guess around 2-2.5mil. Granted, that is just a guess based on my experience. I'd be highly inclined to believe an estimate, if all of the info used is shown to be based on sources that have good reason to believe. Otherwise there isn't much reason to consider any specific possible estimation to be most accurate.

Alt total accounts opposed to alt active accounts will always be higher. This is due to the game being on several platforms and free. And when you say you have 2 active PS4 and 1 active Xbox account, how often do you play them? 

You also very much exaggerate how many people actually have more than one active account.

Edited January 19, 2019 by SneakyErvin

[Kontrollo]

6 hours ago, TheFinalEpic said:

After my last reply I was actually going to self report my own post to be deleted since it clearly got out of hand with PVP posters like you guys pushing their own agenda by manipulating opinions into facts

So I guess we're at a point where you're pretty much accusing me of dishonesty. I've been truthful the entire time here, click here to see what I last did before I took a long break from Warframe, and I still haven't played Conclave again. I'm *gasp* busy playing PvE these days. (Have you or yours ever actually clicked on any link I posted? I have my doubts.)

Remember my first post? We've come full circle: misinformation and latent hostility ring a bell?

Anyway, I'm done talking to you in this thread. I'm offering you the same opportunity as the other guy: If you want to educate yourself, we can talk through PMs or you could join the Conclave discord and have a chat with those guys.

[(PSN)Darth-Escar]

7 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Alt total accounts opposed to alt active accounts will always be higher. This is due to the game being on several platforms and free. And when you say you have 2 active PS4 and 1 active Xbox account, how often do you play them? 

You also very much exaggerate how many people actually have more than one active account.

My main PS4 and Xbox accounts are used daily. The alt PS4 account is used every about 10 days or so.

And no, it's not an exaggeration. I added the disclaimer that what I said about that was based on personal experience. It very much lines up with my personal experience. I won't claim it as an absolute fact or average. It's nothing more than what Inclaim with the given reason. Let's compare that to you essentially telling people they don't know enough for what they're saying to be valid, and giving your own info without anything to show that even know just as much. Your edit here is a great example of that.

7 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

edit: And you are asking for some proof when you dont even grasp the concept of what concurrent numbers mean to begin with. Why should I even bother when you dont even have basic understanding how how player numbers work or what percentages are to be expected regarding retention in online games (or games in general for that matter).

The reason why you should show evidence of some sort is to actually support your otherwise unsupported claim. I could simply use the same logic against you. "You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Why should anybody show you proof, when you don't know how to account for all of the factors of determining player populations?" Of course, I wouldn't say say wouldn't say something like that, seriously. You can simply both my example and my quote from you as "you're not smart enough for proof" which makes for a very weak argument. If what you think really is better than what someone else thinks, there's surely a way to show it. If not, you only convince gullible people rather than reasonable people. Reasonable people are convinced by valid reason.

[S.Dust]

OP here can someone give me a quick catch up cause there are so many walls of text i've kinda gotten lost.

[SneakyErvin]

53 minutes ago, (PS4)Darth-Escar said:

My main PS4 and Xbox accounts are used daily. The alt PS4 account is used every about 10 days or so.

And no, it's not an exaggeration. I added the disclaimer that what I said about that was based on personal experience. It very much lines up with my personal experience. I won't claim it as an absolute fact or average. It's nothing more than what Inclaim with the given reason. Let's compare that to you essentially telling people they don't know enough for what they're saying to be valid, and giving your own info without anything to show that even know just as much. Your edit here is a great example of that.

The reason why you should show evidence of some sort is to actually support your otherwise unsupported claim. I could simply use the same logic against you. "You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Why should anybody show you proof, when you don't know how to account for all of the factors of determining player populations?" Of course, I wouldn't say say wouldn't say something like that, seriously. You can simply both my example and my quote from you as "you're not smart enough for proof" which makes for a very weak argument. If what you think really is better than what someone else thinks, there's surely a way to show it. If not, you only convince gullible people rather than reasonable people. Reasonable people are convinced by valid reason.

Yeah personal experience really isnt an indication of how things are. I can tell you the exact opposite from personal experience because no one I know, nor me have alt accounts in this game and only play on PC. And when an account is used about every 10 days or so it kinda falls out of the concurrent calculation which is based on a daily avarage to account for how many are active at any given time of the day.

And there is no reason to provide any proof because if someone has mistrust against a commonly known thing it isnt hard to do their own research to bring themselves up to speed. I mean it is repeated in almost any discussion about game population and has been so for the last 20 years or so. It is about as common as moms, guns and apple pie in America.

[----Legacy----]

53 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

And there is no reason to provide any proof because if someone has mistrust against a commonly known thing it isnt hard to do their own research to bring themselves up to speed. I mean it is repeated in almost any discussion about game population and has been so for the last 20 years or so. It is about as common as moms, guns and apple pie in America.

If it's so commonly known then nobody would be asking you for proof and even then if someone did ask for it, then it shouldn't be hard for you to find something to prove yourself right, but currently the arguments to why you aren't providing any kind proof do nothing but undermine your credibility even further since these are nothing but lame excuses.

Edited January 19, 2019 by ----Legacy----

[(PSN)Darth-Escar]

9 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

And there is no reason to provide any proof because if someone has mistrust against a commonly known thing it isnt hard to do their own research to bring themselves up to speed. I mean it is repeated in almost any discussion about game population and has been so for the last 20 years or so. It is about as common as moms, guns and apple pie in America.

I didn't belive this at all, and for apparently good reason. (Spoiler to keep things tidy.)

 

Spoiler

http://imgur.com/Oqg5VkD
http://imgur.com/L1y6hVe
http://imgur.com/EljRQEC

 

I'd say this is a reasonable attempt to see weather or not it's hard to reasearch that. Some previews got my hopes up, but anyone can do the same searches and see that they're fruitless, unless you scroll past a bunch of results. Perhaps I could find it with more searching, as I only have slight doubts of that, but it would be much easier for the one who claims it's so easy to find to simply link it him or her self. That is unless you're just plain wrong or being intentionally deceptive.

Are you now seeing the importance of showing evidence for your claims?

 

[SneakyErvin]

14 hours ago, ----Legacy---- said:

If it's so commonly known then nobody would be asking you for proof and even then if someone did ask for it, then it shouldn't be hard for you to find something to prove yourself right, but currently the arguments to why you aren't providing any kind proof do nothing but undermine your credibility even further since these are nothing but lame excuses.

Apparently they havent been around long enough or played games where it is always a topic (besides maybe here in WF).

I simply cannot be bothered to go look up old dev posts or public announcements from other/older games to make 2 or 3 people happy.

6 hours ago, (PS4)Darth-Escar said:

I didn't belive this at all, and for apparently good reason. (Spoiler to keep things tidy.)

 

  Reveal hidden contents

http://imgur.com/Oqg5VkD
http://imgur.com/L1y6hVe
http://imgur.com/EljRQEC

 

I'd say this is a reasonable attempt to see weather or not it's hard to reasearch that. Some previews got my hopes up, but anyone can do the same searches and see that they're fruitless, unless you scroll past a bunch of results. Perhaps I could find it with more searching, as I only have slight doubts of that, but it would be much easier for the one who claims it's so easy to find to simply link it him or her self. That is unless you're just plain wrong or being intentionally deceptive.

Are you now seeing the importance of showing evidence for your claims?

 

See what I said above.

Also another thing I kept thinking on. Your personal experience math is horribly off because 18.5m of the total accounts come from Steam alone. That number is from July 1 2018. This comes directly from a Steam data leak at the time. So the 40m DE have said are likely actual unique accounts where alts arent accounted for (since DE has those metrics available), or it is PC only making up 40m registered users. We already know that Steam holds under 50% of the PC playerbase, that the SA launcher is what the majority uses. So if 40m was the grand total of main and alt accounts for all platforms then all the consoles would share a population of maybe 3 million total registred accounts. And that would be a generous number because at that point we account for Steam taking up exactly 50% of the PC players, giving us 37m total accounts on PC.

[AbyssalWyrm]

58 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Apparently they havent been around long enough or played games where it is always a topic (besides maybe here in WF).

I simply cannot be bothered to go look up old dev posts or public announcements from other/older games to make 2 or 3 people happy.

So you now base your argument in assumptions about the other side and keep adding more excuses on top of your previous already lame excuses. As you can see by Darth-Escar's post, that info isn't as easy to get by as you claim and you being unable to post any kind of back up to your claims is proof that all you want to do in these forums is to remain deceptive and spread misinformation while supporting yourself by nothing but what looks like a circular argument "the info exists, it's common knowledge and has been like that for ages, however, it's your fault if you can't find it, but i refuse to provide proof of it. Still the info exists..." rinse and repeat, and repeat, and repeat... i wonder why would you expect us to believe your word as if it was some kind of dogma and how many times you have to be called out to either drop it or actually back up your claims.

Btw, you are also addressing yourself that the info being used as a base is old, so it wouldn't be surprising if that was outdated info that doesn't apply nowadays.

Edited January 20, 2019 by AbyssalWyrm

[(PSN)Darth-Escar]

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

Apparently they havent been around long enough or played games where it is always a topic (besides maybe here in WF).

 I simply cannot be bothered to go look up old dev posts or public announcements from other/older games to make 2 or 3 people happy.

These statements show that you're aware of the info not being very easily found. This is certainly intentional deception. Either the original statement that it's supposedly easy was a lie, or it was an honest mistake, and you're now trying to hide the fact that you were wrong. How can you expect people to belive assertions which evidence now points against, if nobody provides evidence for it? Even if you know what you say to be correct, it doesn't work in an argument if the people you're arguing with don't know it's correct, and have no decent way to know it's correct. (If you can't be bothered to prove your own point, I can't be bothered to prove your point.)

So sure, you're free to leave your argument as a what's effectively a baseless assertion, but that makes it only fair and reasonable for others to treat it as a baseless assertion. Hitchens Razor, "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." If you say people like Remy and I and wrong, without valid reason, we can dismiss that without any reason.

Edited January 20, 2019 by (PS4)Darth-Escar
Spelling correction.

[SneakyErvin]

3 hours ago, AbyssalWyrm said:

Btw, you are also addressing yourself that the info being used as a base is old, so it wouldn't be surprising if that was outdated info that doesn't apply nowadays.

Old, not outdated because it was "recently" used by Pearl Abyss to give a good grasp on their total players to active accounts ratio when people went dooming and glooming 3 weeks after release when they couldnt understand what concurrent users ment. That case, a popular new game, ended up at exactly a 1:20 between concurrent and total active players at the time (100k or so concurrent users and slightly above 2 million active players at the time). That game had a total population far from the millions we see in WF.

I'm not gonna go dig up the info to make a few happy because I dont really care if you think the game is doing well or poorly. Anyone with just an ounce of insight when it comes to online gaming will know that the game is doing very well. It is just that the pattern has repeated itself in several games over the last 20 years either through dev statements or leaks.

2 hours ago, (PS4)Darth-Escar said:

These statements show that you're aware of the info not being very easily found. This is certainly intentional deception. Either the original statement that it's supposedly easy was a lie, or it was an honest mistake, and you're now trying to hide the fact that you were wrong. How can you expect people to belive assertions which evidence now points against, if nobody provides evidence for it? Even if you know what you say to be correct, it doesn't work in an argument if the people you're arguing with don't know it's correct, and have no decent way to know it's correct. (If you can't be bothered to prove your own point, I can't be bothered to prove your point.)

So sure, you're free to leave your argument as a what's effectively a baseless assertion, but that makes it only fair and reasonable for others to treat it as a baseless assertion. Hitchens Razor, "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." If you say people like Remy and I and wrong, without valid reason, we can dismiss that without any reason.

It is also funny that both of you ignore the simple facts posted in my second section which simply refers to total accounts.

This whole thing pretty much puts a hole in the idea that the game is doing poorly or have anything near the guesstimation numbers that Escar made up in his mind when you factor in what was also said by DE regarding total players. It also gives a very good indication of what DE actually means when they say total players or well users. It also shows that the game has a pretty damn good retention rate.

[----Legacy----]

59 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Old, not outdated because it was "recently" used by Pearl Abyss to give a good grasp on their total players to active accounts ratio when people went dooming and glooming 3 weeks after release when they couldnt understand what concurrent users ment. That case, a popular new game, ended up at exactly a 1:20 between concurrent and total active players at the time (100k or so concurrent users and slightly above 2 million active players at the time). That game had a total population far from the millions we see in WF.

You're still arbitrarily using a measure made on another game as a multiplier value for a game that hasn't published one of their own, your whole "multiply warframe's concurrent players x20" is just an assumption.

It would be completely different if you posted some kind of source instead of trying to remain sneaky.

Btw:

On 2019-01-18 at 8:31 PM, SneakyErvin said:

First, when figuring out player numbers you tend to look at release date or popularity. This tend to give a game a multiplier of 10 to 20 that is used in conjunction with the concurrent players. WF is on the popular side to say the least, so x20 wouldnt be odd to use. With 200k concurrent users on PC you end up with 4 million or so active PC accounts. Add console to that and I'd expect somewhere between 6 or 7 million active players.

This part of your theory is mostly based on speculation since all we have ever known from DE is that they have over 40 millions of registered tenno and the amount of concurrent players from Steam itself  which has an all time peak of ~132K on November but has already dropped to ~78k (meaning a drop of 40% only on steam which may or may not translate to a similar drop of standalone pc players) which i won't deny isn't that bad, but perhaps not that goid either given how many players help to keep those numbers up by logging in for their reward before going to do something else which is a tool used by DE to skew data and make warframe look more popular than it actually is. The 6 months old amount from steam's leak doesn't tell much unless we could parse this info with similar info from Microsoft, Sony on a similar date to calculate the amount of standalone PC players and manage to extrapolate that data to guesstimate the current growth ratio in both, concurrent players and account creations to have a more accurate measure than "i think warframe is on the popular end so its not odd to use a x20 multiplier because a new game got a similar ratio".

Your whole "200K concurrent users on PC" is an unsupported claim since afaik DE has never shown any actual data regarding this info and we don't know the steam to standalone ratio of players to at least estimate the total amount of concurrent pc players at a given date and have a closer measure of DE's player retention.

If we went by today's steamcharts alone and using your method, we would have 77614 (today's peak) x20 (arbitrary multiplier) = 1552280 arbitrarily calculated active players which translates to 3.8807% of the amount of registered players and suddenly doesn't look even close to the 10% you were claiming earlier. 

Even doing the maths with 100K players (2 millions after multiplying) makes it just a retention of the 5% which is slightly better.

Perhaps you may want to add a new multiplier now?

Edited January 20, 2019 by ----Legacy----

[(PSN)Darth-Escar]

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

It is also funny that both of you ignore the simple facts posted in my second section which simply refers to total accounts.

This whole thing pretty much puts a hole in the idea that the game is doing poorly or have anything near the guesstimation numbers that Escar made up in his mind when you factor in what was also said by DE regarding total players. It also gives a very good indication of what DE actually means when they say total players or well users. It also shows that the game has a pretty damn good retention rate.

This is good. I'm about 50% inclined to belive what you're saying now. The other 50% is missing because of potential issues with the data's source, which maybe you can clarify. I'll also just mention the caveats which were stated by the poster of your link's cited source.

http://imgur.com/2ZfKPpW

I compared 3 simlar-ish games on the chart. There may be a better comparison, but I wanted to see how different free and paid game estimations were. As you can see in the screenshot, GTA had more than double Warframe's concurrent players around the time when that data leak happened, yet less. In Warframe's case, the estimated player count is roughly 293x the amount of the concurrent, and in GTA's it's only about 103x. Both of those are way higher than the '10-20x' you meantioned previously. Furthermore, based on the aforementioned caveats, he estimates seem to ignore the possibility of alt accounts, which would much more prominent in a free game than a paid one.

No matter how you look at it, it suggest something is incorrect. Is the estimates from the link are incorrect, than the source is meaningless. If the concurrent player count is somehow incorrect, the source's data is unsupported, and will need some other data to suggest the same. If your mentioned multiplier is incorrect, there's no way to line up the data. With reason, any of those can be corrected though, and if the data does indeed line up after a well-reasoned correction, that would make for a very compelling argument, which I, for one, would belive.

Also, I have mentioned that the estimation I made was simply an estimation based on personal experience, not just made up. I admittedly didn't provide any evidence for it. In my defense though, it's not a farfetched observation with little reason not to belive. Rather than continuing to act as if it's completely exaggerated or made up, you could simply ask me to provide evidence for that. After all, I'd be a hypocrite if I was making claims I had no evidence for. I can't show examples of everyone I know, because that would be super tedious for me, and bothersome to them, but I can nonetheless show many examples from PS4, particularly of the many Youtubers I know. Other Xbox players could tell you about the surprising amount of alt users on Xbox, despite having to have gold to play with others, including a person who supposedly has around 15 alts. If your data doesn't show to be reliable, cole tive player experiences to modify the info shown in Steam's data will be the best info we have to use.