Take a hit DE

[(PSN)Madurai-Prime]

6 hours ago, Traumtulpe said:

I like bringing this example up, because it should be obvious enough to everybody:

When the Primary Tombfinger was released, ALL players built one specific configuration because it was obviously the best. DE's response was to literally nerf it by 50%, while at the same time making an entirely different configuration the obviously best (and in fact better than the nerfed one ever was).

There was no balance in this nerf. None at all. From no angle and no perspective. All they did was delete players time investment.

Sorry, but your comments are getting extraordinary low quality again. I asked DE to stop making excuses, nothing more. Please don't keep quoting me while you respond to the voices in your head.

Like the stream on Brozimes channel where Pablo essentially says the A.I. isn't actually bad, they are taking cover and such, it's just that we shut them off that's the issue? That developing the A.I. is a waste of time because we shut it off?

What specific excuse did they make?

[DroopingPuppy]

Halts Wukong to exploit for afk is actually good. Although it causes many side effects and that's the problem.

Also while AOEs are need to be a nerf but is it a reason to touch non-AOE weapons' ammos as well?

[SneakyErvin]

17 minutes ago, YouDontCB_87 said:

First of all, if you don't even know how to calculate without valid argument, to prove I'm wrong or guide/lead me to improve my calculation, how do you know I'm calculated it wrong.

Second, without knowing how I'm actually calculating it, you just accused that I'm simply "lumped up all numbers for a whole year without understanding that what Steam shows is concurrent numbers". This only prove your ignorance.

I'm taking the calculation of Average Players by month; average players by month means it's has been summing up every day's players then divided by how many days within that month.

By summing up 12 months of Average Players by Year (2022 only up to 9 months), then divided further by 12 months (2022 divided by 9) and we get Yearly Average Players data, that's how math works.

Lastly, don't you see that average players dropping means overall players playing within that year was become lesser and lesser, what make you think that when overall players playing the game is less there could still be more unique players at the first place? *up to this point do you even know what is average and how its being counted?

By saying unique player count, mean it's including player only playing 1 hour throughout the whole year, so this method sounds valid to you?

Hence, if the overall AVERAGE players is less, means there is NO WAY that you can get more numbers out of it. Simple math, Clear?

By simply looking at your chart. Because you have assumed that the stats shown on Steam = total players. And when you get that wrong, nothing on your chart can be correct. And no one can know how to properly calculate it since we are left with an X factor in the calculation, which is how many times a day the concurrent number is freshly replaced.

No, it just proves you dont know what you are actually looking at or try to calculate.

You dont have access to those numbers. The numbers you add up are already calculated since they are an avarage number of players online at any given time of the day. You cant just add them up and think you get anywhere. If there are 30k concurrent players it could mean 20k, 50k, 100k, 300k or more players pass through the game in a single day, month or whatever you want to calculate. Steam doesnt track unique players, which is why your math doesnt work at all. "Total avarage" does simply not exsist. You have avarage concurrent players and you have total number of unique users going through the game. The last part we cant calculate since we lack the knowledge of how often unique players log in and out, we can guesstimate it. The first part we already know since Steam already provides those numbers.

No, that would be avarage concurrent players, not avarage number of players. Which is why you cant add it up to a grand total for instance, since it will still be per month avarage of concurrent players and nothing more. Which is also something that doesnt positively show a strict decrease in players, just that the activity per player can be lower i.e shorter sessions, only logging in once per day etc. Things we just dont have any info about.

No I dont see that. We can speculate, but we dont actually know anything more than how many are on at any given time. Which also can technically result in the same amount of unique players across a month, but with less logins each. That is simply how the numbers shown by Steam works.

Yes it is valid, why wouldnt it be. That 1h per year gut will fall out of the statistics since he'll first be a fringe for day activity and then a further fringe statistic for monthly and then even a small for yearly and finaly non exsistant for monthly avarage based on the year.

Yes there is, if you understoof concurrent numbers you'd get it too. Is it probable? Likely not. Is it possible? Yep it definently is.

[Traumtulpe]

1 hour ago, (XBOX)Ampathetiic said:

The only specific Tombfinger change I was able to find was a minor charge speed nerf to certain grips, combined with a slight damage buff to other grips (or rather, making the damage penalties of certain grips less severe). This change was actually based on player feedback, and it even says so in the patch notes. Furthermore, this change just made more grips viable, while lowering the power of the other grips that previously dominated: One power level was lowered, and another raised to meet it, resulting in closer power levels overall; that seems like the epitome of balance to me.

You appear to have not even the slightest clue of what you are talking about, and it's quite tiring to be honest. I'll give a little something to consider, quote from the Wiki:

Quote

Primary

• Uses Rifle mods.
• The Grip chosen with the Tombfinger affects the charge time in addition to the fire rate and damage. Grips with higher damage output will increase the charge time, while grips with lower damage will reduce it.
  • When paired with the Brash grip the charge time is 0.5 s, the quick shot AoE damage is 30 Radiation, and the charged shot AoE damage is 412 Radiation.
  • When paired with the Palmaris grip the charge time is 0.5 s, the quick shot AoE damage is 35 Radiation, and the charged shot AoE damage is 417 Radiation
  • When paired with the Shrewd grip, the charge time is 0.8 s, the quick shot AoE damage is 40 Radiation, and the charged shot AoE damage is 422 Radiation.
  • When paired with the Steadyslam grip, the charge time is 1.1 s, the quick shot AoE damage is 79 Radiation, and the charged shot AoE damage is 461 Radiation.
  • When paired with the Tremor grip, the charge time is 1.4 s, the quick shot AoE damage is 108 Radiation, and the charged shot AoE damage is 490 Radiation.

0.5 seconds charge time for 417 AoE damage vs 1.4 second charge time for 490 AoE damage. You CAN see that this is NOT balanced AT ALL, right? I really hope you can.

Now to clear up your ignorance, the ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE 1.4 second charge time version was actually 0.8 seconds before. So the DPS was just about halved. Anybody who built this thing rightly threw it in the trash after the changes.

[Traumtulpe]

5 hours ago, Genitive said:

they would have to either nerf our CC abilities, or make enemies resistant. Would you like that?

They already did that though? Multiple times, in fact, and it wasn't a problem.

Also this is a strawman. Not everybody uses CC, but everybody suffers from the zombie tier A.I.

[Genitive]

5 minutes ago, Traumtulpe said:

They already did that though? Multiple times, in fact, and it wasn't a problem.

I don't know. Overguard seemed to have been a problem to many. Now imagine that but for everything, because we have to make the AI matter.

7 minutes ago, Traumtulpe said:

Also this is a strawman. Not everybody uses CC, but everybody suffers from the zombie tier A.I.

Is it though? The majority of warframes has some sort of crowd control, not to mention status effects from weapons. But that aside, I imagine our damage potential would also have to be reduced so the enemies can stay alive for long enough to utilise their new AI.

I wouldn't mind if DE tore down the current system and built the damage and scaling systems from scratch, future proof them, etc. In fact, I think it is a matter of when, rather than if. But just a change to ammo and the monkey caused people to review bomb the game and threaten the devs. Now imagine sweeping changes across the whole damage and modding systems, and complaints about "player investment".

[YouDontCB_87]

44 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

By simply looking at your chart. Because you have assumed that the stats shown on Steam = total players. And when you get that wrong, nothing on your chart can be correct. And no one can know how to properly calculate it since we are left with an X factor in the calculation, which is how many times a day the concurrent number is freshly replaced.

No, it just proves you dont know what you are actually looking at or try to calculate.

You dont have access to those numbers. The numbers you add up are already calculated since they are an avarage number of players online at any given time of the day. You cant just add them up and think you get anywhere. If there are 30k concurrent players it could mean 20k, 50k, 100k, 300k or more players pass through the game in a single day, month or whatever you want to calculate. Steam doesnt track unique players, which is why your math doesnt work at all. "Total avarage" does simply not exsist. You have avarage concurrent players and you have total number of unique users going through the game. The last part we cant calculate since we lack the knowledge of how often unique players log in and out, we can guesstimate it. The first part we already know since Steam already provides those numbers.

No, that would be avarage concurrent players, not avarage number of players. Which is why you cant add it up to a grand total for instance, since it will still be per month avarage of concurrent players and nothing more. Which is also something that doesnt positively show a strict decrease in players, just that the activity per player can be lower i.e shorter sessions, only logging in once per day etc. Things we just dont have any info about.

You whole argument was saying that no one should refer to steam data because it makes no sense.

The stronger you're trying to defense your points, only reveals how much you don't know about how numbers/data/chart work.

 

56 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

No I dont see that. We can speculate, but we dont actually know anything more than how many are on at any given time. Which also can technically result in the same amount of unique players across a month, but with less logins each. That is simply how the numbers shown by Steam works.

Caught you, "We can speculate, but we dont actually know anything more than how many are on at any given time", lets agreed that we both DON'T KNOW about anything, what makes you think that you know better than I do?

On top of that, I can give data as reference, while you provide no prove in validating your argument.

 

48 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Yes it is valid, why wouldnt it be. That 1h per year gut will fall out of the statistics since he'll first be a fringe for day activity and then a further fringe statistic for monthly and then even a small for yearly and finaly non exsistant for monthly avarage based on the year.

Yes there is, if you understoof concurrent numbers you'd get it too. Is it probable? Likely not. Is it possible? Yep it definently is.

You statement is just absurd as "if I eat food with cost $50 everyday since birth, then by the age of 60, you worth a million $".

Well, keep covering your ear, and say la la la. So we just pretend nothing happened.

[(XBOX)Ampathetiic]

37 minutes ago, Traumtulpe said:

You appear to have not even the slightest clue of what you are talking about, and it's quite tiring to be honest.

It's more the case that nobody has any clue what you're talking about besides yourself, because you've chosen to live in some fantasy land where the incompetent developers can't balance their game properly, keep pissing off their player base by throwing their time in the trash, and then blame those players and make excuses for the mistakes they as developers made. 

I'd imagine the mental gymnastics you need to interpret every action the devs take in this weird narrative would be far more exhausting than me explaining to you how the kitgun changes were balanced. That said, if I'm bothering you, I'll stop engaging with your posts and let you live your life.

 

[Traumtulpe]

1 hour ago, Genitive said:

Is it though? The majority of warframes has some sort of crowd control, not to mention status effects from weapons. But that aside, I imagine our damage potential would also have to be reduced so the enemies can stay alive for long enough to utilise their new AI.

I don't see it this way at all. You can play any Warframe you want, enemies spawn in lockers, dead ends, around every corner and behind every door, and they walk towards you like zombies. No abilities used.

Improving their behaviour, spawn patterns, and overall quality is not in any way impeded by whatever a player then chooses to do. To pretend otherwise is to make excuses.

1 hour ago, (XBOX)Ampathetiic said:

I'd imagine the mental gymnastics you need to interpret every action the devs take in this weird narrative would be far more exhausting than me explaining to you how the kitgun changes were balanced.

How about you stop talking meaningless words and engage with the content of my post? A weapon that does 417 damage per 0.5 seconds, and one that does 490 damage per 1.4 seconds are not balanced, not even close, and changing the subject won't help you pretend otherwise.

The fact that the 1.4 version was actually nerfed from 0.8 only adds insult to injury.

I'll even do the math for you, that is 834 dps vs 350 dps - in other words, the not nerfed version is 2.4 times as good. Now I dare you to call this balanced again.

[Stormhawkaro]

hace 6 horas, (PSN)Vexx757 dijo:

That`s not the reason, it was changes (nerfed) coz ppl were complaining that Ash was taking ppl`s kills and could not take his kills (And more things) but now bs is so slow that other ppl can take his kills now, his bs can`t even kill lvl 6 enemies in a team. The marking mechanic is bad and this is one of the reasons why I'm pushing Ash to get a revisit.

Friendly reminder that Bladestorm used to mark a whole group of enemies in front of him and these would all become immune to damage by other players while Ash entered cinematic mode and killed them all with the help of his clones, which could take ages in high enough levels.

[Genitive]

25 minutes ago, Traumtulpe said:

I don't see it this way at all. You can play any Warframe you want, enemies spawn in lockers, dead ends, around every corner and behind every door, and they walk towards you like zombies. No abilities used.

Improving their behaviour, spawn patterns, and overall quality is not in any way impeded by whatever a player then chooses to do. To pretend otherwise is to make excuses.

Yeah, ok, fair enough. Now that you specified what you meant I can agree with this, since I also have a problem with things like spawns.

[Crevab]

Oh yeah, I remember when DE realized they'd given primary tombfinger no reason to build anything but Tremor, so they changed it such that the fast chambers are better at charged attack and slow chambers are better at quick attack

 Funny how even when they make a tweak right away instead of letting it sit for months and years there are still people that won't let it go.

[----Legacy----]

17 hours ago, YouDontCB_87 said:

You got me switching topic on the original guy's reply, that's a good one, but you quoted me over the discussion when I'm further talking about yearly dropping issue. You missed the strike.

Debate aside, I do aware that "gains and loses during updates while players comes back and go" that's the fact I've already acknowledge, in case you missed out my argument that just few posts/replies below the one you quoted me. 

In my reply to you over that part you underlined on you words, your argument literally just says that "the Update is just out, I don't see dropping in number, so it's fine".

So let's just pretend everything is fine, and don't even bother about negative review on steam because it means nothing, despite the fact that it's dropping down to 23% positive now, for the first time in 9-10 years, cause who cares about them.

"Tell me you don't know about data without telling me you don't know about data"

You're dishonestly twisting what i said:

To make it simple:

Just checked steamcharts and warframe had almost 37K players an hour ago, that's over twice the almost 18K negative reviews at the time.

And even then, that data is from steam alone since -afaik- we have no access to similar info from other platforms suchs as XBox, PlayStation, Nintendo Switch, Epic Games launcher nor PC standalone warframe.

17 hours ago, YouDontCB_87 said:

Yet you agreed that  "It shows player count dropping yearly", I get that you all trying to voice out cause I'm a bit 'cocky' here, I don't mind if you guys wanna have/win conversation, but at least be consistent with your words.

"Please be consistent, please be consistent, please be consistent."

*It's so important I have to repeatedly mention it 3 times, if anyone being inconsistent again when quoting me out, then I'm gonna start quoting myself with this.

I agreed to it showing player count dropping yearly, yeah, but in the same post i also mentiong the use of it being the case only for steam, which should have been enough to make clear that the whole post is made keeping that in mind. Not sure if you legit didn't understand that (which would be odd for someone who talks so much about understanding things) or are just being dishonest and nitpicking on any minor detail to make yourself sound like someone who knows something.

[Traumtulpe]

19 minutes ago, Crevab said:

Funny how even when they make a tweak right away instead of letting it sit for months and years there are still people that won't let it go.

As I made perfectly clear, they changed the best version to be 2.4x inferior to the newly best. And they did this after about a week - enough time for people to put a bunch of forma into it. There is NO reason at all to ever use the Tremor version for anything anymore - you can look at usage statistics if you don't believe me.

[Tiltskillet]

44 minutes ago, Crevab said:

Oh yeah, I remember when DE realized they'd given primary tombfinger no reason to build anything but Tremor, so they changed it such that the fast chambers are better at charged attack and slow chambers are better at quick attack

What's the appeal of building for quick charge with it?  I only recently built the weapon and haven't really used it, but full charge looks a lot better on the surface.

[(PSN)Vexx757]

On 2022-09-26 at 8:32 AM, Minion135 said:

I agree, I would like to see a re-work for him. 🙂 I still enjoy using him, but he certainly doesn't feel like he's in a good spot to me right now.

Ash don`t need a rework his ability concepts are fine, he needs a revisit. If he can get a revisit like what Nezha got or better that would be great. Ppl say Ash is fine coz he can kill in sp but not everyone want to play sp and if that`s you only reason to why you say he`s fine then its a stupid one. Ash needs to do a lot more than just use bs.

 

On 2022-09-26 at 2:30 PM, Stormhawkaro said:

Friendly reminder that Bladestorm used to mark a whole group of enemies in front of him and these would all become immune to damage by other players while Ash entered cinematic mode and killed them all with the help of his clones, which could take ages in high enough levels.

This is incorrect, he would target enemies in a radius with a limit of 18 enemies he could kill, also enemies was not immune they had their defence increased and only exalted weapons could kill them. But the last part is true however that was only in high-level defence and the solution was to kill the eximus that was increasing enemies defences then use bs. Now compare that to the current bs, it has many issues than don`t have a solution which is why he needs a revisit. The marking mechanic is the worst thing to happen to him, ppl won`t admit it but if Saryn, Mesa, Volt`s 4th ability had the marking mechanic ppl would complain and hate it.  Despite it`s issues, the old bs is far superior than the current bs and past videos prove that.

[cute_moth.npc]

6 hours ago, Tiltskillet said:

What's the appeal of building for quick charge with it?  I only recently built the weapon and haven't really used it, but full charge looks a lot better on the surface.

Quick charge is definitely better than slow on Tombfinger when you look at the effective damage over time for the charged shots (the infested part I think it's called Palmaris has the best blend), although the uncharged shot really sucks on that build as a trade off. 

[Tiltskillet]

3 minutes ago, cute_moth.npc said:

Quick charge is definitely better than slow on Tombfinger when you look at the effective damage over time for the charged shots (the infested part I think it's called Palmaris has the best blend), although the quick shot really sucks on that build as a trade off. 

I feel like I'm not grasping something here.  Quick charge Tombfinger is better than slow for dps, but quick charge really sucks anyway?  I know you like the weapon and you don't mean that it all sucks. :P

Do you find that quick charging dps makes up for the loss of the huge radius?

[cute_moth.npc]

5 hours ago, Tiltskillet said:

I feel like I'm not grasping something here.  Quick charge Tombfinger is better than slow for dps, but quick charge really sucks anyway?  I know you like the weapon and you don't mean that it all sucks. :P

Do you find that quick charging dps makes up for the loss of the huge radius?

I mean that the faster fire rate builds work better with the charged shot but they have a sucky uncharged shot, the slower fire rate builds end up with a better uncharged shot but a suckier charged shot (the damage is nice but the damage compared to the charge rate makes the faster ones honestly better) I am trying to word it right, I should have separated thing a bit better sorry ^^;

I went back and tried to fix the confusing wording on my other post -_-

Generally though people want Tombfinger primary for the charged shot, so faster fire rate builds like Palmaris work better (they nerfed slower ones a while back for some reason which is what other people were talking about)

[MichaelBoltz]

38 minutes ago, YouDontCB_87 said:

Wow that's a strongest argument I've ever come across "Just checked steamcharts and warframe had almost 37K players an hour ago, that's over twice the almost 18K negative reviews at the time." Note: on September itself there is only 13.5K+ negative review btw, not 18K (18K+ are together with positive reviews), this is just further prove that you have no idea how to see data but still wanna use data as a prove to validate your statement. 

Your statement is so absurd, I literally can't find any analogy in real life or metaphor in comparing this absurdness that leave me speechless.

*OS: my brain just freeze and shut for a moment after reading this. You did it man.

I don't mind players to correct me if they know how things work, but OMG, I can't believe you can just speak eloquently when you don't even know how data/numbers/charts works.

Well, I'm from PC platform, what do you expect, be free analyst here for all platform when you can't even understand how number works? Oh "Just checked steamcharts and warframe had almost 37K players an hour ago, that's over twice the almost 18K negative reviews at the time."

Base on your concept, if we don't know about anything, what's makes you think that you know more than me.

Hence everyone should just shut up, cause we know nothing?

I feel you man.

I have so many argument about the decline in player base but almost all of the nerf supporters seem to just turn a blind eye and always tell you that you’re wrong but don’t actually provide their evidence to backed their claims.

And to use active players vs negative reviews ratio as an evidence was just…. 

My statistics teacher gonna cried just reading WF forum comments.

[YouDontCB_87]

1 minute ago, MichaelBoltz said:

I feel you man.

I have so many argument about the decline in player base but almost all of the nerf supporters seem to just turn a blind eye and always tell you that you’re wrong but don’t actually provide their evidence to backed their claims.

And to use active players vs negative reviews ratio as an evidence was just…. 

My statistics teacher gonna cried just reading WF forum comments.

My life would be easy if I didn't get A in my Statistic (but it was few years ago, still, I remember the concepts)

[----Legacy----]

1 hour ago, YouDontCB_87 said:

Wow that's a strongest argument I've ever come across "Just checked steamcharts and warframe had almost 37K players an hour ago, that's over twice the almost 18K negative reviews at the time." Note: on September itself there is only 13.5K+ negative review btw, not 18K (18K+ are together with positive reviews), this is just further prove that you have no idea how to see data but still wanna use data as a prove to validate your statement. 

I used the total amount of reviews solely to show how you're nitpicking on whatever little detail you can find in an attempt to sound smart. Mission accomplished.

1 hour ago, YouDontCB_87 said:

Your statement is so absurd, I literally can't find any analogy in real life or metaphor in comparing this absurdness that leave me speechless.

*OS: my brain just freeze and shut for a moment after reading this. You did it man.

I don't mind players to correct me if they know how things work, but OMG, I can't believe you can just speak eloquently when you don't even know how data/numbers/charts works.

Well, I'm from PC platform, what do you expect, be free analyst here for all platform when you can't even understand how number works? Oh "Just checked steamcharts and warframe had almost 37K players an hour ago, that's over twice the almost 18K negative reviews at the time."

It shouldn't be hard to note the meaning of said sentence: For each review in the last 30 days, there's over 2 people who are still playing, especially keeping in mind that there's about ~13775 negative reviews.

1 hour ago, YouDontCB_87 said:

Base on your concept, if we don't know about anything, what's makes you think that you know more than me.

Hence everyone should just shut up, cause we know nothing?

No, i think people shouldn't focus so hard on steam numbers while totally disregarding that it's only 1 out of the 5 platforms where warframe is available and the only one from which we have data available. Anyone who claims to be a genius about understanding how data works wouldn't dismiss such detail, just like anyone with basic comprehension reading skills would have been able to understand the comment you quoted without their brain getting frozen.

[MichaelBoltz]

1 hour ago, ----Legacy---- said:

No, i think people shouldn't focus so hard on steam numbers while totally disregarding that it's only 1 out of the 5 platforms where warframe is available and the only one from which we have data available. Anyone who claims to be a genius about understanding how data works wouldn't dismiss such detail, just like anyone with basic comprehension reading skills would have been able to understand the comment you quoted without their brain getting frozen.

Why do you think the trend need to be so different in each platform? We’re looking and analyzing the trend so there’s no need for an actual number.

PC was by far dominated other platforms by a very large margin so we can make some assumptions here and just saying 1 of the 5 platforms to make its like only 20% of total players was very misguided given more than 60% of WF players play on PC

So focusing on steam chart was always a legit method to calculate the growth of the game’s player base if there’s no other more reliable source available.

If we’re just waiting for all the data to be available we just as well sit down and do nothing because you just can’t analyzing anything anymore waiting for complete data that forever unavailable.

[SneakyErvin]

22 hours ago, YouDontCB_87 said:

You whole argument was saying that no one should refer to steam data because it makes no sense.

The stronger you're trying to defense your points, only reveals how much you don't know about how numbers/data/chart work.

 

Caught you, "We can speculate, but we dont actually know anything more than how many are on at any given time", lets agreed that we both DON'T KNOW about anything, what makes you think that you know better than I do?

On top of that, I can give data as reference, while you provide no prove in validating your argument.

 

You statement is just absurd as "if I eat food with cost $50 everyday since birth, then by the age of 60, you worth a million $".

Well, keep covering your ear, and say la la la. So we just pretend nothing happened.

No I'm saying you cant use steam data the way you do since the steam data is already an avarage calculation on its own and it is a calculation that shows something different from what you try to show.

I dont think I know the numbers better than you, I only say that I know what the numbers actually show on steam. 

There is zero need to validate anything for me, steam already does it. You just fail to grasp the concept of what steam actually shows you.

I dont see how my statement even remotely equals that analogy. You just dont know what steam actually shows.

And a sidenote: One thing you also fail to include is that people from steam have moved over to other launch options since 2018 that do not show on steam charts. We've had discord, we now have Epic and there is the standalone, neither of which we have access to any data from. This also applies to new players picking up the game.

Also I'm not saying WF hasnt dropped, I'm simply saying the way you use the data is simply not correct given what the data already shows, and that it doesnt cover all launcher options we have now for the game.

Plus, if we consider your numbers correct and being about concurrent users, WF still has a retention rate of 66% between 2018 and now 2022, that is by being generous to you and using a 60k peak for 2018 vs 40k for 2022 so far. In reality, using your numbers mean closer to a 70% retention rate. Again an abnormality within gaming, since mostly after the initial 6 months to a year a game is down to between 15-30% retention rate, sometimes even dipping to 10% if it is a really bad/niche game. Yet here we are, 4 years post- abnormal gain with a 70% retention rate for concurrent numbers.

[mycroft_]

9 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Plus, if we consider your numbers correct and being about concurrent users, WF still has a retention rate of 66% between 2018 and now 2022, that is by being generous to you and using a 60k peak for 2018 vs 40k for 2022 so far. In reality, using your numbers mean closer to a 70% retention rate. Again an abnormality within gaming, since mostly after the initial 6 months to a year a game is down to between 15-30% retention rate, sometimes even dipping to 10% if it is a really bad/niche game. Yet here we are, 4 years post- abnormal gain with a 70% retention rate for concurrent numbers.

I'm not sure it shows a retention rate that high, that's the maximum it could possibly be.

Player numbers could still be high with a 0% retention rate, if all the old players quit and it was all new players.

It would be nice if DE would release some real data on this, but I imagine it wouldn't paint them in a good light to do so...