Fountain of Youth/Stone Nerf Combo: Fatality

[strawman 114]

Saturday, December 29. Just after launch, Atlas achieves its all-time peak of 58,788 players.

Saturday, January 5. 50,877 players are online at the peak, a 13.5% decline from the prior week. Not bad - people are sticking with the game.

Saturday, January 12. Just under three weeks after launch, 44,130 players are online at the peak, a respectable 75% of the all-time peak population, and a similar 13.25% decline rate.

Saturday, January 19. Days after the introduction of the "Old Age" debuff and Fountain of Youth quest, Atlas peaks at 37,166 players, a 15.75% decline from the prior week. Not only is the population not stabilizing, it's bleeding at an increasing rate.

Saturday, January 26. Today, with the Fountain of Youth essentially unchanged and the stone building nerf in place, 30,067 people were online at the peak. This is a 19% decline from the previous Saturday - the worst bleed rate in the game's short history - and only 51% of the all-time peak.

This game has a problem, and I think I know what it is.

[Dragoon14th 12]

Soemthing to point out...... This isnt even covering over if you are playing on Official server or not.... So if you were to say 30% of those player that are on private server  that mean only 21k that are spread out 4 servers..... so thats what 5250/40000 sever if we are talking evenly spread out myself i am not playing because of reasons.... and that is REAL life comes first. 

[Adfax 157]

I find myself asking... "Is it worth killing your game for an age mechanic?"

[Herkin 4]

If this is only tracking official servers, which I believe it is. Like was said above, this can't accurately depict the game as a lot of people have moved on to private servers. 

[Nari 197]

Coloration != causation. At least this is better attempt at using data to prove a point than my buddy shawn over there...

[Herkin 4]

Just now, Nari said:

Coloration != causation. At least this is better attempt at using data to prove a point than my buddy shawn over there...

The only point I'm seeing is that official server population is declining. Same thing happened on Rust, ARK, etc...

[Nari 197]

10 minutes ago, Herkin said:

If this is only tracking official servers, which I believe it is. Like was said above, this can't accurately depict the game as a lot of people have moved on to private servers. 

I don't see the dev kit release mentioned in that data set just sayin

Edited January 27, 2019 by Nari

[Herkin 4]

1 minute ago, Nari said:

I don't the dev kit release mentioned in that data set just sayin

What do you mean?

[Nari 197]

1 minute ago, Herkin said:

What do you mean?

That the OP is cherry picking. Neglecting other obvious factors such as private servers and the new kit providing incentive for players to move to unofficial.

[strawman 114]

26 minutes ago, Herkin said:

If this is only tracking official servers, which I believe it is. Like was said above, this can't accurately depict the game as a lot of people have moved on to private servers. 

My understanding is that Steamcharts is showing the total number of Steam users who have the game open at any given time, regardless of official or unofficial server, or if they're even connected to a server. If you compare it against Reznok's player tracker, it looks like 50-60% of the Steamcharts population is usually on official servers.

27 minutes ago, Herkin said:

The only point I'm seeing is that official server population is declining. Same thing happened on Rust, ARK, etc...

I played a lot of Rust. It didn't do well in legacy (it's first year or so) but since the game was re-released, it has grown consistently, almost always sitting in the top 10 now.

[Nari 197]

25 minutes ago, strawman said:

My understanding is that Steamcharts is showing the total number of Steam users who have the game open at any given time

If that is indeed the case then I recant the cherry picking statement but to use data like this to try and build an accurate representation of the health of playerbase is difficult to say the least. There are so many variables at play to account for.  in the name of keeping this short lets only use Peak as an example. Although delayed Atlas was a holiday release. That alone is a huge factor regarding the overall peak. Now factor in Hype. They dropped their trailer at a convention and practially a week later the buy button was clickable. How did that affect sales?

Edited January 27, 2019 by Nari

[Thor Ragnarock 99]

It's also not that crazy that people have dropped off already. The game play in here becomes extremely repetitive. People got in, leveled, respec'd multiple times, explored the trees. Some had fun, some didn't. There is a lot of content to come as far as we know. There are tons of bugs and balancing to be sorted, that is obvious at this point. People likely are moving onto new things, moving back to other games, or are waiting for massive changes that bring a reason to come back. I had come close to burning out when my brother had finally decided to come join. So I have still been playing myself despite being really unhappy with some recent changes. I am in it for the long haul but even I am going to stop playing for good chunks of time because I don't live to just play Atlas, Atlas is just one of many games in my library.

[Adfax 157]

1 hour ago, Nari said:

Coloration != causation. At least this is better attempt at using data to prove a point than my buddy shawn over there...

Correlation doesn't ALWAYS prove causation; however it is enhances the likelihood that the cause is true.

It is almost like you're attempting to discount this evidence entirely. That would be foolish.

Edited January 27, 2019 by Adfax

[Nari 197]

Just now, Adfax said:

Correlation doesn't ALWAYS prove causation; however it is enhances the likelihood that cause is true.

It merits more research yes, but is not enough to hold water.

[Adfax 157]

4 minutes ago, Nari said:

It merits more research yes, but is not enough to hold water.

You could walk in a room after hearing a scream, see someone covered in blood holding a bloody kitchen knife, and a dead body with a fresh stab wound.

You couldn't say for sure that person killed the victim, but the circumstances that would have to unfold for them not to be would be highly unlikely.

And lastly, you'll have to provide a counter theory to the loss of all those players.. What reason do you have that such a significant amount of players left around that specific time?

Edited January 27, 2019 by Adfax

[Nari 197]

Just now, Adfax said:

You could walk in a room after hearing a scream, see someone covered in blood holding a bloody kitchen knife, and a dead body with a fresh stab wound.

You couldn't say for sure that person killed the victim, but the circumstances that would have to unfold for them not to be would be highly unlikely.

Nice strawman argument. You get my point and at this point you're just trolling your bait.

[Adfax 157]

1 minute ago, Nari said:

Nice strawman argument. You get my point and at this point you're just trolling your bait.

How is it a strawman? 

Are you not attempting to discredit the evidence by bringing to everyone's attention that correlation isn't always causation?

Saying that doesn't help the OPs observations, so either you're putting forth a neutral statement, or you're skeptical of the evidence.

Edited January 27, 2019 by Adfax

[Nari 197]

3 minutes ago, Adfax said:

How is it a strawman? 

straw man

Dictionary result for straw man

/ˌstrô ˈman/

noun

noun: strawman

1. 1.

   an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

At what point was that my argument exactly? I'm not saying the data is invalid or contaminated but simply not processed thoroughly.

[Adfax 157]

2 minutes ago, Nari said:

straw man

Dictionary result for straw man

/ˌstrô ˈman/

noun

noun: strawman

1. 1.

   an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

At what point was that my argument exactly? I'm not saying the data is invalid or contaminated but simply not processed thoroughly.

I'm stating the assumed motives behind the statement you made. 

If you were trying to help OPs case, you'd have never said what you did. 

Edited January 27, 2019 by Adfax

[Nari 197]

Just now, Adfax said:

If you were trying to help OPs case, you'd have never said what you did. 

If you see someone pushing on a door that say pull how is pointing that out to them not helping?

[Adfax 157]

2 minutes ago, Nari said:

If you see someone pushing on a door that say pull how is pointing that out to them not helping?

Are you denying that your motives were to attempt to discredit the OPs evidence?

That you were just making a neutral statement, that "correlation is not always causation"?

Edited January 27, 2019 by Adfax

[Nari 197]

3 minutes ago, Adfax said:

Are you denying that your motives were not to attempt to discredit the OPs evidence?

That you were just making a neutral statement, that "correlation is not always causation"?

Yes. read the comment again

Correlation != causation. Full Stop. At least this is a better attempt than others. Full Stop. Nowhere did I try to discredit the data or the points that OP highlighted.

Edited January 27, 2019 by Nari

[Adfax 157]

Just now, Nari said:

Yes. read the comment again

Correlation != causation. Full Stop. At least this is a better attempt than others. Full Stop. Nowhere did I try to discredit the data or the points that OP highlighted.

Right, but WHY did you post it. That is what we're talking about here.

[Nari 197]

1 minute ago, Adfax said:

Right, but WHY did you post it. That is what we're talking about here.

Because the logic is flawed XD

[Adfax 157]

4 minutes ago, Nari said:

Because the logic is flawed XD

But it isn't, correlation is an excellent indicator. It just doesn't prove certainly; but what does?

It is one of the few things the devs have to go on. .If they can't trust that, they'd have to take random stabs in the dark, and where would that get us?

Edited January 27, 2019 by Adfax