Battlerite is alive and well, learn to stats, thank you.

[Belgarion]

Players in the last 2 weeks: 77,745 ± 7,870





Concurrent players means a lot for 30 minutes to 1h games, because low player count on long games means huge matchmaking times.

Concurrent players means jack ♥♥♥♥ for 2 minutes games like battlerite.

People play 3-5 games of dota 2, this means 1h30 to 2h30 of gameplay per day, stats are inflated as ♥♥♥♥.
People play 3-5 games of battlerite? This means 6 to 10 minutes of battlerite per day.

Yet, it's the same amount of games. In Dota 2, concurrent players would appear 1500% more inflated for the same amount of players playing the same amount of games.

http://steamspy.com/app/504370

Please chill out everyone, game is not dying, game isn't even born yet.
____________________________________________________________________

Anecdotal: When I play overwatch, one of the games with the highest player counts, I have to wait 2-3 minutes for a ranked match. In battlerite, it takes 10-20 seconds to get a match. You have to compare conccurrent players to game time.

[gr33nbits]

You can't compare a game like Overwatch that is balanced and matches stuff with Battlerite.

[Cừ Milch]

yeas, battlerite is dead

[Devo | 222]

Bel honestly i agree with you

[Cừ Milch]

a battlerite game is short. but the matchmaking is still broken.

battlerite r.i.p.

[Ordack]

Let's see the comparison ...

http://steamcharts.com/cmp/504370,291550,570


The loss of players is evident:

http://steamcharts.com/app/504370

Originally posted by Belgarion:

Players in the last 2 weeks: 77,745 ± 7,870

[uboras]

Originally posted by Ordack:

Let's see the comparison ...

http://steamcharts.com/cmp/504370,291550,570


The loss of players is evident:

http://steamcharts.com/app/504370

Originally posted by Belgarion:

Players in the last 2 weeks: 77,745 ± 7,870

:rfacepalm:

Sigh... Ordack, please don't draw a wrong conclusion from the data... *facepalm*...what can be deduced from the steamcharts is that FEWER players play AT THE SAME TIME. This of course is relevant for matchmaking, but it is WRONG to equate this to a loss of players at least of roughly the same amount.

For the sake of the argument, here's a simple example (excluding fluctuation over the day, etc.): Lets say that 1200 players play Game X over the course of a day and each player plays for an hour. This sums up to 1200 hours of total playtime on each day. That is, on average, 50 players playing concurrently, at the same time of the day. So steamcharts would show 50 players.
Now, if each of those 1200 players starts to play only 50 minutes of the day (instead of an hour) this would sum up to 1000 hours of total playtime on each day. That is, on average, 41.6 players playing concurrently at the same time of the day. So steamcharts would show 41.6 players and a loss of 16 percent. So, how many players have left? Not a single player has left. It is PLAYING TIME that is lost. As players do play for slightly less long, the steamcharts drop. BUT YOU CANNOT DEDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PLAYERS LOST from this data.

Now to your comparison of Battlerite with DOTA2 and Brawlhalla:

Brawlhalla:
Owners: 5.2 million, concurrent players yesterday: 10000, different players last 14 days: 560000
Dota2:
Owners: 98 million, concurrent players yesterday: 850000, different players last 14 days: 10 million
Battlerite:
Owners: 550000, concurrent players yesterday: 1700, different players last 14 days: 85000

Battlerite has the highest percentage of different owners, that played the game during the last 14 days: Brawlhalla: 10.7%, Dota2: 10.2%, Battlerite: 15.4%

Battlerite is second, comparing the concurrent players relative to owners:
Brawlhalla: 0,19% Dota2: 0.8% Battlerite: 0.3%

And if you look at the average playtime, it hints to why it lags behind Dota2: A Dota2 player has played about 20 hours on average, a Battlerite player about 6 hours during the last 14 days. And one reason for this is that a single Dota2 game lasts much longer then a battlerite one or even a session.
So your comparison doesn't back up your point either. Battlerite has the highest fluctuation in the number of concurrent players, that can be said for sure. One reason may be that players play shorter sessions. To come up with statements about players leaving, please investigate the trend of total players playing during the last 14 days and include factors like end of season etc. Then put this in relation to other games and keep in mind that Battlerite has not been released yet and its core playerbase may have not been established. Thanks.

[Ordack]

Originally posted by uboras:

Steam Chart takes the players in an hour, not the time of each player.
As you say, the graph rises and is not true, so calculate it for each hour.

"The collector queries the number of concurrent players on an hourly interval for every single game in the Steam catalog"

["Come to the Chopper"]

Why trying to educate mentally challenged people, OP?

It's pointless. Let those idiots believe what they will, we live in post-factual times.

[uboras]

Originally posted by Ordack:

Originally posted by uboras:

Steam Chart takes the players in an hour, not the time of each player.
As you say, the graph rises and is not true, so calculate it for each hour.

"The collector queries the number of concurrent players on an hourly interval for every single game in the Steam catalog"[/i]

Phhh..., ok, one last try :) Noone said that steamcharts actually calculates the player time totals over the course of a day. I mentioned them just to clarify the calculation of the simplified example that I gave to get the point across:
If 1200 players are playing evenly distributed throughout the day, each one for one hour, steamcharts will show 50 concurrent players when the number of players playing is taken each hour.
If 1200 players are playing evenly distributed throughout the day, each one for 50 minutes, steamcharts will show 41 or 42 concurrent players when the number of players is taken each hour.
But it's still the same number of players (1200), just them playing shorter sessions. So you cannot deduce the loss of players from the steamcharts alone, as you implied. To do that, you have to consider the totals and averages given by steamspy. And in comparison to Brawlhalla and Dota2 (the examples you gave) Battlerite still has the highest percentage of owners that actually played the game during the last 14 days. In comparison to Brawhalla, Battlerite has a higher percentage of concurrent players relative to the number of total players. As games in Dota2 last longer, the average individual playtime is higher than in Battlerite, which distorts the charts in comparison, like shown in the example. That's what the OP said and he's right with this.

[bob]

Your point sucks.

All that matters is: "Peak concurrent players yesterday: 1,698"

This means that the matchmaking is bad. Just read this. It's by a dev of awesomenauts, another matchmaking game with low concurrent players.

http://joostdevblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/why-good-matchmaking-requires-enormous.html

Basically, players are split between game types, ranking within those game types, afkers, and real world location.

There isn't a fix to this besides becoming a popular game. And there's no sureway to becoming popular aside from big branding like Blizzard, Valve, Bethesda, etc.

Which feeds into itself, because people don't want to play unpopular things, when they can just play a game they've already been playing, like LoL or dota.

["Come to the Chopper"]

*Facepalm*

[uboras]

Originally posted by bobby:

Your point sucks.

All that matters is: "Peak concurrent players yesterday: 1,698"

This means that the matchmaking is bad. Just read this. It's by a dev of awesomenauts, another matchmaking game with low concurrent players.

The number of concurrent players is relevant, that's why I put ' This of course is relevant for matchmaking' in my first post (#6) as the second sentence. But this IS NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.

This thread is about
1) whether the number of players that left the game can directly be deduced from the number of peak concurrent players (NO)
2) whether the relative number of peak concurrent players has dropped far below some reference values of OTHER games so that Battlerite can be considered *dead* according to this measure (NO)

There is a decline of peak concurrent players over the course of the last months in reference to itself, which can be attributed to players playing shorter sessions and some of them leaving. But the initial relative number of peak concurrent players of Battlerite was very high in comparison to other games. So, as the game cooled down, which is part of its lifecycle, the numbers dropped to what can be expected from other games and not below yet. So according to these numbers the game is alive. Yes, as this game currently has to be paid for, it can be argued that the numbers should be higher than in a f2p game. But this is the EXPERIMENTAL PHASE of Battlerite, not the release/player acquisition phase with large marketing budgets etc. THIS GAME IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE AN ALL-AROUND PLEASANT EXPERIENCE FOR US YET, so it is to be expected that more players play for short or stop.

Originally posted by bobby:

There isn't a fix to this besides becoming a popular game. And there's no sureway to becoming popular aside from big branding like Blizzard, Valve, Bethesda, etc.

Again: With buying into early access we agree to act as lab rats for SLS (for the benefit of getting all champions for free). Which means that we provide them with input and data they need to develop some decent product. So we have to expect them to rock the boat with what they try (or don't try) and that some players are thrown off while developing a product that could turn into a popular game. If they would release this game in its current state as f2p and I got into as a new player I would go like:
'What the heck is that non-existing tutorial? Where are the chats? Why do I have to get my ranking from masterbattlerite and cannot access it ingame? Why aren't there any social landing zones? Why aren't there any other gaming modes for less competitive chillout? These maps are all they offer? ..." And would never return.
SLS aims at ironing out these kinks and then go all-in marketing, that's what they stated. A more developed game invites the players they will attract to stay for longer and not ask the above questions. First come up with a great and polished product; that means some hardships till its done. Then invite a large number of players to try the experience that got better because of the input from early access. And I think it is a sound strategy.