barely anyone online?

[Corona Scurrae]

takes ages until a match is found and then it's the finest wifi connection with 300ms ping...

[VayneCalibur]

I'm from Spain and I find matches instantly.

[[reaVerNL@Rumble]ᚱᛖᚨᚠᛖᚱ]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Fish:

Lobbies are highly populated and I'm able to find matches in both ranked or casual in under a minute of queue.
Unsure what your issue. The only thing I can suggest is try changing your match making region.

On the topic of player drop off, that happens with literally ANY game after launch. People will be moving on to play different things or don't play as frequently. That said, there're plenty of people playing that you shouldn't be having issues matching.

You can look at steamchart and see that what you got there is little more than wishful thinking. Sure the lobbies are full, but that's because one of them is always crashing and the players have to relocate to keep playing. The amount of lobbies has gone from 6 to 3 in Europe as is and the trajectory is going down rather than up. Part of this problem is with the game, the other part is players having established the pecking order now move away from the game and go sit in discord to post lewd images of Ladiva.

[Fish]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von reaVerNL@Rumbleᚱᛖᚨᚠᛖᚱ:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Fish:

Lobbies are highly populated and I'm able to find matches in both ranked or casual in under a minute of queue.
Unsure what your issue. The only thing I can suggest is try changing your match making region.

On the topic of player drop off, that happens with literally ANY game after launch. People will be moving on to play different things or don't play as frequently. That said, there're plenty of people playing that you shouldn't be having issues matching.

You can look at steamchart and see that what you got there is little more than wishful thinking. Sure the lobbies are full, but that's because one of them is always crashing and the players have to relocate to keep playing. The amount of lobbies has gone from 6 to 3 in Europe as is and the trajectory is going down rather than up. Part of this problem is with the game, the other part is players having established the pecking order now move away from the game and go sit in discord to post lewd images of Ladiva.

Well as I've said, just like with the majority of games, trajectory for player base is always gonna be going down gradually, until an update or a sale then it will spike up before going down again. I've seen the steam chart and this is nothing alarming.
Not to mention, steam chart keeps track of the free edition and the full game separately and doesn't even include the players from PlayStation. The actual player count online is higher than what's visible on steam chart when crossplay is a thing.

Ppl will move on to play different games. Those who remain and continue to play this as their main title are minority relatively speaking.

[[reaVerNL@Rumble]ᚱᛖᚨᚠᛖᚱ]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Fish:

Well as I've said, just like with the majority of games, trajectory for player base is always gonna be going down gradually, until an update or a sale then it will spike up before going down again. I've seen the steam chart and this is nothing alarming.

Again, this is simply not true. Good games increase their playerbase over time rather than decrease it. You can look at the charts for the top games and you will see that this is the common long time trend one way or another.

Not to mention, steam chart keeps track of the free edition and the full game separately and doesn't even include the players from PlayStation. The actual player count online is higher than what's visible on steam chart when crossplay is a thing.

While this may be true, the numbers on steamchart are pretty indicative of the game's popularity and the trend can be presumed across all platforms.

Ppl will move on to play different games. Those who remain and continue to play this as their main title are minority relatively speaking.

Yes, but there must be some sort of a problem with this game if people for to look for alternatives. It doesn't even need to be the gameplay itself, perhaps players get burned out too quickly, but then what would they do to get players to come back at least once in a while?

[Fish]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von reaVerNL@Rumbleᚱᛖᚨᚠᛖᚱ:

Again, this is simply not true. Good games increase their playerbase over time rather than decrease it. You can look at the charts for the top games and you will see that this is the common long time trend one way or another.

That is not usually true. The launch of the game sees the most amount of player, then comes a drop off, until the number hits a plateau where it stablizes; from there it goes up and down.
Let's take BG3 for example:
https://steamcharts.com/app/1086940
All time peak is at 875343 while the current 24hr peak at the time of writing this post is 188435. That's almost 80% drop if you only look at that on its own but the game is currently maintaining a very healthy and impressive player count.
If you look at the chart, you can see the peak (during game launch) followed by the dip post launch until the player base stablizes. The drop off percentage really means nothing. That is very normal. Then there's rise and drop in player population but the overall trend is downward until it stablizes. Again, this is normal. Expect to see spikes once new major update or sale is out.
Besides, Rising is only out for a month. It's normal to be in the drop off phase of the life cycle at this stage.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von reaVerNL@Rumbleᚱᛖᚨᚠᛖᚱ:

While this may be true, the numbers on steamchart are pretty indicative of the game's popularity and the trend can be presumed across all platforms.

It is a known fact that fighting games are rather niche. Not to mention a fighting game based on a rather niche IP. I don't think anyone expects Rising to do numbers as seen on titles like Tekken. You are right in that Steam chart indicates overall popularity, but the comparison point should be using other fighting games of similar calibre. Take the original GBVS, that game had delay based netcode, no crossplay, and an all-time peak on steam of only 3367, and on average (before Rising came out that is) about 100ish concurrent players online. Most people considered that game dead, but I myself joined towards the tail end of that game's lifespan, and I still managed to clock in 500 hours of game time playing online. The fact is, we're playing fighting game here, not a battle royale. You don't need a massive player base to find matches.
And now that we have crossplay, even if we were to assume similar number of players on Playstation too (which I doubt, because Japan is heavily playstation based so I expect there to be way more players on Playstation instead), the total combined player count is still way more than enough than what you'd need for a healthy fighting game player base.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von reaVerNL@Rumbleᚱᛖᚨᚠᛖᚱ:

Yes, but there must be some sort of a problem with this game if people for to look for alternatives. It doesn't even need to be the gameplay itself, perhaps players get burned out too quickly, but then what would they do to get players to come back at least once in a while?

That is why we have a roadmap with content updates already scheduled to come basically every month.

Again, drop off is expected. I'm sure there are people who aren't satisfied with the game who left and will never come back, but even disregarding that, people who like the game aren't going to keep playing it as their main title all the time.

It only becomes a problem if the drop off continues even when a major content update drops, which we cannot decide yet because the next major update is slated next week. It has not happened yet and therefore we simply cannot say this is a one way downward trend yet.

[Corona Scurrae]

maybe it's due to the fact that I'm new? maybe that's why matchmaking is taking too long in ranked?

[Cinnamoroll]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Mahmood Potter:

maybe it's due to the fact that I'm new? maybe that's why matchmaking is taking too long in ranked?

Not too likely, it could be that most of the players around your skill level have moved up to A rank though, on account of you being unable to demote in A and below.
I presume you chose the option when first joining online that put you in B or C rank?

[[reaVerNL@Rumble]ᚱᛖᚨᚠᛖᚱ]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Mahmood Potter:

maybe it's due to the fact that I'm new? maybe that's why matchmaking is taking too long in ranked?

From what I'm seeing more and more players are no longer playing the game. Even peak hours in Europe have an abysmal lobby representation. If the current trend keeps up the game will die within a month.

[Cinnamoroll]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von reaVerNL@Rumbleᚱᛖᚨᚠᛖᚱ:

From what I'm seeing more and more players are no longer playing the game. Even peak hours in Europe have an abysmal lobby representation. If the current trend keeps up the game will die within a month.

The last game didn't die, so this one certainly won't.
I think all this dooming and glooming is unjustified though. As it's been said many times, games will naturally have a decline in player numbers as the launch date gets further away. This will bump up during events, when DLC launches, etc.
To simply act like it's some straight line on a graph and that player numbers are just going to plummet to zero at the same rate they have been slowly falling is really disingenuous.

[ichigorukia1]

When Relink drops most Granblue fans who are just casual FG fans will most likely move on to that for their Granblue fix.

[Fish]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von reaVerNL@Rumbleᚱᛖᚨᚠᛖᚱ:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Mahmood Potter:

maybe it's due to the fact that I'm new? maybe that's why matchmaking is taking too long in ranked?

From what I'm seeing more and more players are no longer playing the game. Even peak hours in Europe have an abysmal lobby representation. If the current trend keeps up the game will die within a month.

As I've already explained in my detailed response, I simply don't think that'll happen. You can save your doom posting until the first major update actually drops.

[[reaVerNL@Rumble]ᚱᛖᚨᚠᛖᚱ]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Not the Protagonist:

The last game didn't die, so this one certainly won't.
I think all this dooming and glooming is unjustified though. As it's been said many times, games will naturally have a decline in player numbers as the launch date gets further away. This will bump up during events, when DLC launches, etc.
To simply act like it's some straight line on a graph and that player numbers are just going to plummet to zero at the same rate they have been slowly falling is really disingenuous.

The last game was dead as ♥♥♥♥. You had the luck that all players decided to play lobby on wednesday in Europe or there would've been noone to play with. And no matter how you try to spin it, the game not even lasting 2 months before an entire region decides to just give up on the game is not common for good games. Yes, bad games have a standard decline where they eventually lose their entire playerbase and really bad games lose their players even faster. Good games however, remain relatively stable and really good games even show an increase in playerbase. You can look at Factorio, Rust, PoE, ARK and other games, they have over time shown an upward trend rather than a downward trend. The fact this game is losing its playerbase is not 'normal' in the slightest.

[Gebba]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von reaVerNL@Rumbleᚱᛖᚨᚠᛖᚱ:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Not the Protagonist:

The last game didn't die, so this one certainly won't.
I think all this dooming and glooming is unjustified though. As it's been said many times, games will naturally have a decline in player numbers as the launch date gets further away. This will bump up during events, when DLC launches, etc.
To simply act like it's some straight line on a graph and that player numbers are just going to plummet to zero at the same rate they have been slowly falling is really disingenuous.

The last game was dead as ♥♥♥♥. You had the luck that all players decided to play lobby on wednesday in Europe or there would've been noone to play with. And no matter how you try to spin it, the game not even lasting 2 months before an entire region decides to just give up on the game is not common for good games. Yes, bad games have a standard decline where they eventually lose their entire playerbase and really bad games lose their players even faster. Good games however, remain relatively stable and really good games even show an increase in playerbase. You can look at Factorio, Rust, PoE, ARK and other games, they have over time shown an upward trend rather than a downward trend. The fact this game is losing its playerbase is not 'normal' in the slightest.

Dude you're just fundamentally wrong. There's been multiple great games that have died such as Battleborn or Spellbreak, you wouldn't know about it because they died

There's also way more games that 'die' in a region simply because the developers didn't actually market the game to that region. GW2 is an example of that

It depends on the market and the competition as well as advertisement among other things

The game losing its playerbase a month after release is a universal trend in every single game which is exactly what Fish tried to tell you with Baldurs Gate 3

All of the games you mentioned started as indie titles that ended up growing in to becoming unique experiences or filling a niche market that had less competition at the time. Hell, even Dark Souls started off the same way going from a pretty clunky mess with a niche audience in to an absolute titan that Elden Ring is today, and its' success might actually be attributed (at least in part) to the streamers who picked up on it early in to the series that got more people involved

Also the only game that actually requires interacting with other players out of your list is Rust, why does it matter if the other games are growing or not? The rest can all be played as a single player experience (hi, HCSSF player here). You really do seem to take some kind of personal attachment or identification with the numbers since you're also quantifying it to how you measure if a game is good

Granblue isn't a new unique game that breaks the norms of the current industry or inventing a new genre

No fighting games are ''forever games'' like Factorio, Rust, PoE, Ark, Fortnite, BDO, Warframe, and so on. There's a decent amount of competition and not big enough of an audience capture as well as it's just not part of their business strategy

The game you're looking for is most likely going to be Project L and i'm looking forward to it for the same reason

[Cinnamoroll]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von reaVerNL@Rumbleᚱᛖᚨᚠᛖᚱ:

The last game was dead as ♥♥♥♥. You had the luck that all players decided to play lobby on wednesday in Europe or there would've been noone to play with. And no matter how you try to spin it, the game not even lasting 2 months before an entire region decides to just give up on the game is not common for good games. Yes, bad games have a standard decline where they eventually lose their entire playerbase and really bad games lose their players even faster. Good games however, remain relatively stable and really good games even show an increase in playerbase. You can look at Factorio, Rust, PoE, ARK and other games, they have over time shown an upward trend rather than a downward trend. The fact this game is losing its playerbase is not 'normal' in the slightest.

If the only time I could play with people in Europe was during Wednesday lobby night then why was I getting to play matches literally all week round for the past 2 years? Oh right, it only takes two to play a fighting game and there were still plenty of active players that could all fight and would want to at various times of the day. I don't understand the sentiment of "I can still get matches but the game isn't popular so I guess it's dead." If it has an active playerbase it's dead as long as it's small enough?

I don't believe people will give up on Rising though. This game is fun and it's gone off to a good start. I don't think it'll hold the same numbers over all platforms that GGS did but I also don't see it declining to the point DNF did. Not just "bad" games have a standard where they decline, most games do. You're thinking of these few exceptional games that managed to break the rule and determining everything else is bad if it isn't. And even in cases like this, they don't just infinitely gain more players, usually there's a spike in the playerbase as the result of an update, or a piece of media, or something else. "Good" games don't just magically bring in players at a nice steady rate forever. There's nothing saying GBVSR couldn't have the same crazy boom that GGS did with Bridget when it's playerbase was falling and you mfs were dooming and glooming about the game dying when it was still perfectly easy to find matches with less than 2k people playing on steam.

[ANTARES]

Im from europe and i find matches every 10 seconds