Is this game alive?

[Athenex]

Its been allot of times since I wanted to get absorver but everytime the game seemed death maybe this freeweekend it will live?

[obliviondoll]

Originally posted by Luna Wolf:

Originally posted by obliviondoll:

50 - 100 players isn't really alive. Except that it was consistently 150+ on a daily basis. And that's (still) 150+ in a game where that's more like 1500 players compared with the usual standard people measure your playercount against.

You are clearly just a fanboy. Stop lieing. https://steamcharts.com/app/473690
Fuccin aye m8 in april they didnt even get to 150 PEAK players let alone avg.

Started looking at April's stats from the 1st.

153 peak concurrent players.

Guess that claim falls apart at the first hurdle.

Not to mention, April was around 3 months ago. Right before the last major update (and sale) which kicked the community back into action as it was starting to slow down. There was a 400+ concurrent player spike in May. If you look at the 3 months since then, you'll notice the community has stabilised around the 150-ish range with occasional spikes to 200+

If you're going to quote stats, maybe you should make sure they match your story?

[Mr Fister]

Originally posted by obliviondoll:

Originally posted by Luna Wolf:

You are clearly just a fanboy. Stop lieing. https://steamcharts.com/app/473690
Fuccin aye m8 in april they didnt even get to 150 PEAK players let alone avg.

Started looking at April's stats from the 1st.

153 peak concurrent players.

Guess that claim falls apart at the first hurdle.

Not to mention, April was around 3 months ago. Right before the last major update (and sale) which kicked the community back into action as it was starting to slow down. There was a 400+ concurrent player spike in May. If you look at the 3 months since then, you'll notice the community has stabilised around the 150-ish range with occasional spikes to 200+

If you're going to quote stats, maybe you should make sure they match your story?

Why are you lieing like people cant click the link?
April 2018
77.9 <Average
+1.8 <Gain
+2.35% %Gain
145 <PEAK
and again https://steamcharts.com/app/473690

Also idk why you are confuseing the word concurrent with peak. Peak would be the max players playing at one time. Average would be the the sum divided by the count.
Gonna add that the werbsite does not say "peak concurrent" which would be an ignorant statement at best as steam chart doesnt gauge that measue. smh.

p.s. i like the game but fbois like this are the ones killing it.

[obliviondoll]

Originally posted by Luna Wolf:

Why are you lieing like people cant click the link?
April 2018
77.9 <Average
+1.8 <Gain
+2.35% %Gain
145 <PEAK
and again https://steamcharts.com/app/473690

Also idk why you are confuseing the word concurrent with peak. Peak would be the max players playing at one time. Average would be the peak the sum divided by the count.

Well, first off, no. Concurrent is number of players at the same time. Peak concurrent is max number of concurrent players on at the same time during the day. In related news, you spelt "lying" and "confusing" wrong. And forgot the apostrophe in "can't" (fun fact: "cant" is also a word, but has no possible relevance to the meaning of the rest of your sentence).

And here, have a graph with accurate numbers instead of the mistakes that Steamcharts keeps making by cutting random values out of their data after a few months:

https://steamdb.info/app/473690/graphs/

As you can see if you check the graph on a site which actually keeps track of ALL the numbers instead of throwing half of them out and making up values to fill them with, 153 players on the 1st of April.

Also visible even on Steamcharts: Everything else I said.

[Mr Fister]

Originally posted by obliviondoll:

Originally posted by Luna Wolf:

Why are you lieing like people cant click the link?
April 2018
77.9 <Average
+1.8 <Gain
+2.35% %Gain
145 <PEAK
and again https://steamcharts.com/app/473690

Also idk why you are confuseing the word concurrent with peak. Peak would be the max players playing at one time. Average would be the peak the sum divided by the count.

Well, first off, no. Concurrent is number of players at the same time. Peak concurrent is max number of concurrent players on at the same time during the day. In related news, you spelt "lying" and "confusing" wrong. And forgot the apostrophe in "can't" (fun fact: "cant" is also a word, but has no possible relevance to the meaning of the rest of your sentence).

And here, have a graph with accurate numbers instead of the mistakes that Steamcharts keeps making by cutting random values out of their data after a few months:

https://steamdb.info/app/473690/graphs/

As you can see if you check the graph on a site which actually keeps track of ALL the numbers instead of throwing half of them out and making up values to fill them with, 153 players on the 1st of April.

Also visible even on Steamcharts: Everything else I said.

Once again (https://steamcharts.com/app/473690) there is no "peak concurrent" on the site only PEAK, i didnt throw half of them down the drain, i posted the link. You lied and said the game always has 150 people daily (which anyways is still dead according to Steam)which was the only reason i specified the april marks showing less than 150 people were playing the game at one time. I showed the truth, you got mad at the posted truth then tried to add words to a website i linked to try to prove a clearly false point, this is sad af, seriously i think you alone kept me from buying this. I was just trying to be honest and you come in like a fboi fanboi. Have fun with none to pvp. Peace.

[Mr. Frank]

guys, guys, you're all aware that steamcharts is an aproximation, only valve and the dev know the numbers with any accuracy right? i mean, someone was posting statistical analysis with 1% gain, and while the math was probably good (i don't know, i glanced over it) the database is so inherently flawed that it's worth little more than a thought experiment

[obliviondoll]

Actually I said it was consistently getting 150+ prior to the free weekend, not that it's always been getting 150+ since it released. And explained why that isn't dead by the standards of an indie fighting game. Just for reference, the biggest indie fighting game community on PC is Skullgirls, which typically has around 200 to 250 peak concurrent playercounts.

And "peak" in the numbers you're quoting IS peak concurrent player numbers. Because that's what "concurrent" means.

Lastly, I didn't get "mad". I just pointed out why your claims are false, and explained what ACTUALLY happened in place of your made-up story that doesn't have proper evidence behind it.

EDIT: And Steamcharts uses Steamspy data, which is *NOW* an approximation but in April was accurate. But Steamcharts (unlike SteamDB), doesn't maintain full details and it distorts their data beyond 3 months. For example, looking at April figures where the game peaked above 150 players and Steamcharts shows it below 150 instead because they cut out chunks of the data.

[Mr Fister]

Originally posted by obliviondoll:

Actually I said it was consistently getting 150+ prior to the free weekend, not that it's always been getting 150+ since it released. And explained why that isn't dead by the standards of an indie fighting game. Just for reference, the biggest indie fighting game community on PC is Skullgirls, which typically has around 200 to 250 peak concurrent playercounts.

And "peak" in the numbers you're quoting IS peak concurrent player numbers. Because that's what "concurrent" means.

Lastly, I didn't get "mad". I just pointed out why your claims are false, and explained what ACTUALLY happened in place of your made-up story that doesn't have proper evidence behind it.

Lol why do they list current players then, please stop this bs . Trending
Name
24-hour Change
Last 48 Hours
Current Players
Absolver
+1117.4%

2,584


https://steamcharts.com/

[Mr Fister]

Full stop.

[obliviondoll]

You seem confused. Fun little detail you're missing here: "current" and "concurrent" are two different words.

[H.U.N.K]

Originally posted by Athenex:

Its been allot of times since I wanted to get absorver but everytime the game seemed death maybe this freeweekend it will live?

It will be once they realize what people wanted was a martial arts action rpg instead of a broken boring pvp game that 1000s of fighting games do better than this which I sed at launch and was slapped down by fanboys.
Which it seems the devs are waking up to by adding new coop dungeons soon I just hope they arn't too late because this could be something special and unique.

[FGCNN | Nurdell]

Idk, it's rather unique in it's moveset, mechanics, characters, pretty much all the gear i've looked through looks good; and in no way is it boring.

If you're looking for huge-ass attacks covering half the screen, there's anime fighters, tons of them, buff dudes beating the crap out of each other - street fighter, tekken and many others. To me it's like toribash - precise movements, very much open ended combat (if i dare to compare) But you don't need to have iq above 120 to play it. Also very much comparable to that swordswinging 3d game I don't remember the name of, but I bounced right off that one cause you had to aim attacks with mouse and if you were a tiny bit off, it didn't connect.

[Prince Vegeta]

Originally posted by obliviondoll:

Originally posted by Outlaw Star:

https://steamcharts.com/app/473690
I was curious too, looks like it's what most people would consider a dead game.

That's because "most people" judge a game on the assumption that it's at least a 5v5 MOBA and recently possibly on the basis of it being a 50+ per match battle royale game. And on those games, 150-ish players as a peak concurrent playercount in a day IS dead. But in an indie fighting game community, even 100 player in a DAY - let alone peak concurrent playercounts 50% higher than that - are considered stable communities where you can regularly find unique opponents.

You understand how it works and still choose to be different? Well I mean, someone has to pick yellow team, right?

It doesn't matter much, after this weekend this guy will be all alone venting on the forums to the other 150~ish players.

[obliviondoll]

Originally posted by Outlaw Star:

Originally posted by obliviondoll:

That's because "most people" judge a game on the assumption that it's at least a 5v5 MOBA and recently possibly on the basis of it being a 50+ per match battle royale game. And on those games, 150-ish players as a peak concurrent playercount in a day IS dead. But in an indie fighting game community, even 100 player in a DAY - let alone peak concurrent playercounts 50% higher than that - are considered stable communities where you can regularly find unique opponents.

You understand how it works and still choose to be different? Well I mean, someone has to pick yellow team, right?

It doesn't matter much, after this weekend this guy will be all alone venting on the forums to the other 150~ish players.

I understand how it works.

I'm explaining to help people who don't.

Prior to the free weekend, the game was definitely NOT dead. Now, it's much further from dead. If it can retain more players, then awesome! More opponents to fight, teach, and learn from. And more allies to work with, both in open world and 3v3, as well as in the new PvE mode in September. But if it drops back to 150-ish, it'll still have a stable and healthy playerbase for a 1v1 fighting game, and will still not be dead.

[Prince Vegeta]

Originally posted by obliviondoll:

Originally posted by Outlaw Star:

You understand how it works and still choose to be different? Well I mean, someone has to pick yellow team, right?

It doesn't matter much, after this weekend this guy will be all alone venting on the forums to the other 150~ish players.

I understand how it works.

I'm explaining to help people who don't.

Prior to the free weekend, the game was definitely NOT dead. Now, it's much further from dead. If it can retain more players, then awesome! More opponents to fight, teach, and learn from. And more allies to work with, both in open world and 3v3, as well as in the new PvE mode in September. But if it drops back to 150-ish, it'll still have a stable and healthy playerbase for a 1v1 fighting game, and will still not be dead.

You are simply trying to convert others to believe your opinion. Sorry, we're not interested it seems. Personally I think it's great you want to fight for your beloved game. That won't change how people go about deeming a game dead or not, unfortunately.

What you see as stable, I see as playing the same handful of people over and over again. You may see that as a positive, but I, and it would seem most customers, see that as a negative.

[totty]

Well, you have very firmly asserted your points and put a negative slant on Absolver's second shot. Good work! I guess you're right though, I guess with a jump in player numbers and an expansion inbound, might as well stop because those two things obviously indicate a game is dead and not fun to play. Surprised I missed this over the 2.6k hours played over the last 9 months with 15 friends in game at time of this comment.

jk. It doesn't even matter who wins this stupid thread argument, I'll still be playing Absolver, and you'll still be throwing shade at a game and missing out on the goods. Or not, either way, there's plenty of players to take your place.