• 918 Players on Java
  • us.mineplex.com
  • 11985 Players Online
  • 11067 Players on Bedrock
  • pe.mineplex.com
Attention Internet Explorer Users
To have the best user experience on our site please consider upgrading to Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox

In Discussion Bring Back Castle Siege [Evidence Regarding Its Justified Revival]

Discussion in 'New Game Discussion' started by Danese, May 1, 2020.


Would You Want CS To Be Brought Back?

  1. Yes!

    317 vote(s)
  2. Maybe...

    31 vote(s)
  3. No.

    36 vote(s)
  1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    @Danese's views on Castle Siege

    @FierceDougal5's views on Castle Siege

    @JumpingBean's Story about Castle Siege

    @Fusafez's views on Castle Siege


    Dear Production, Mineplex, and whomever else it may concern,

    Over the course of just under two months, this thread, which continues to advocate for the revival of Castle Siege onto the live lobby, has done the following three things which are easily noticeable simply by changing the "view threads" option on the bottom of this forum section.

    This option:

    1. This thread has become the number 1 most viewed thread within the "New Game Discussion" subsection of the "Ideas Discussion" forum section.


    2. This thread has gained the most first-message likes here in the "New Game Discussion" section.


    Second place: Mineplex Prison


    First place: This thread


    3. This thread has gained the most replies within the "New Game Discussion" section.


    4. Over the course of the past several months, our community has continued to create new and exciting content for Castle Siege.

    And, because I cannot possibly put it any better myself:


    Specifically, our community has developed 4 new CS maps that are currently on the live Network. We still have two more maps that are in testing and we are working on new content all the time.
    You can check out all of our live and WIP content by visiting our CS Build Team's Profile Page.

    At this point, Mineplex and any/all who oppose this game's return, the community has spoken. There is an overwhelming amount of support for CS to be reimplemented across the live Network now that all of the evidence, justifications, and other reasons to bring the game back are all but the icing upon this cake.

    So, please... Just bring it back already! How many teeth do we need to pull for you to finally listen to us about this?

    New Content:
    Original Post from May
    Suggestions and Ideas for the game mode
    Addressing Criticism
    Post's Change Log

    Original Post


    "Bring Back Castle Siege."
    Here are my counter-arguments against those who argue against its revival!

    Argument 1:
    "Nobody plays Castle Siege"
    This "argument" is based entirely on assumptions. My counter-argument is based entirely on actual evidence.
    -We have been running a Castle Siege discord server where we advertise our MPS's and only run Castle Siege.
    -This discord server has a total of 135 players (and it's still continuing to grow):


    Additionally, our MPS's are continuing to run for periods of between 8 and 12 consecutive hours.
    This is our MPS as of 11:45 am MST today (May 1st, 2020):
    We've had to pull back the player count to 50 due to the lag caused by running an MPS with 65 players (and many more who were attempting to join the full server).

    2. "There were times where the games would not start due to nobody being on the server."
    If my previous counter-argument was completely ignored by you (as evident by still considering this argument as not yet "debunked"), let me show you something.
    This is the current state of affairs for the arcade lobbies [Heads up, there's a lot!]:


    There are SO MANY arcade servers that consistently have no games running due to the lack of players on the given arcade game-specific server.
    These games require 16 players for a filled lobby. They also require 8 players to start. Yet, so many of them are running absolutely no games at any given time.
    Meanwhile, our Castle Siege MPS servers continue to have a minimum of 20 players on at any given time, very rarely dropping anywhere below 15 players online.

    3. "I don't think we can spare the dev time."
    Sorry to put it bluntly (I'm not, but let's just pretend I am), but, considering the excess amount of players who are playing this game at any given time, I feel like you should make some dev time for this game.
    As proven above, there is an outstanding amount of dedicated players to this game mode who continue to play this game continuously. That's more than can be said for the arcade servers up above.

    4. "The game gets laggy when handling a large number of players on the server."
    First, MPS's, in my experience, are somewhat weaker than dedicated servers (at least, dedicated servers for larger games, like bridges).
    Having a dedicated CS server, if built right, could potentially reduce this lag.
    Second, to reduce the amount of lag caused by extreme amounts of players, let's do this:
    A. set the minimum player count to start a game to 20.
    B. Set the maximum amount of players for a given server to 50.
    C. Do not allow any players to bypass this limit (ranks cannot get in when the server is at max capacity).
    4a. "The game mode would require considerable redesign for this."
    As I have said repeatedly, we have been running games with a minimum of 20 players at any given time for 8 to 12 hours on end. Additionally, the amount of time we are continuously running our MPS's is continuing to increase in the number of consecutive hours they are running games with more than 20 players.
    Let me assure you, redesigning the game for this change in the player count is unnecessary.

    5. "The game is not fun."
    I disagree, and so do the 65 players playing in our MPS at the time of me writing this post, along with the 175 players presently within our discord server (and yes, they are all continuously active), as well as the large number of players continuing to join our discord server every day.
    It's your opinion, yes; however, your opinion is not the popular opinion in this situation. Given this, your opinion is not a valid argument against the revival of this game mode.

    6. "The game is unbalanced"
    It's not. Please play the game before saying this. If I said that DOM is unbalanced, the DOM community would laugh at me. Yet, with the exact same conditions, this "argument" against the revival of CS is valid?
    Yeah, no.

    7. "Players can just play the game on an MPS."

    Playing Castle Siege on an MPS server is not a long-term solution.

    A. There's lag (as mentioned earlier). In my experience, Mineplex Player Servers are not meant to be "as buff" as servers that are dedicated to games with large traffic (such as, say, for bridges). They seem to be designed for, well, relatively small groups of friends to hang out on. As such, trying to run an MPS with 60 players on at a time results in the server dragging and the game becoming unplayable. We've had to limit the size of our MPS's in order to reduce the amount of lag present.

    This is actually where the statement above came from (suggesting that the game starts w/ a minimum of 20 players and a limit of 50). While running our MPS's, we've found that a 50 player game runs much more smoothly than if we extend the limit past that point. Not to mention, as stated above, the game Castle Siege is still quite enjoyable, even with a lobby of only 20 players. As a matter of fact, the game is still relatively balanced with 20 players (10 per team).

    One of the reasons as to why it was quite difficult to justify reducing the game start size below 50 players was due to trying to keep the game balanced. This was discussed by the old Castle Siege Game Insites group back in 2017 and 2018. Considering that the number of players in the game is a heavily weighted factor regarding balancing the game, it's no surprise that this was frequently debated upon, even by casual players in the games themselves.

    However, the games we have run have shown, to me at least, that a 20 player game is still quite balanced for both teams.

    Will players leaving become more of an issue due to this lower player start limit.

    Well, I won't try to BS you or even lie to you. The answer is yes, it will.

    However, the fact still remains that Mineplex does not have nearly as many players on at a given time as it did back in 2015: a time where we were able to have 6 Castle Siege lobbies running with a 60 player start limit. And, at that time, there were still lobbies that players purchased ranks to join because of the fact that so many of the lobbies were at max capacity.

    Now, the average daily player count seems to be at around 1-2 thousand players. Sacrifices must be made for just about all of the games on the network. It was this reason that the game was removed in the first place.

    The reason I have made this thread and have provided so much actual evidence is to show that this game can, in fact, actually stand a chance on the Network and that it is feasible to actually rerelease dedicated game lobbies for Castle Siege.

    With the modifications to the game lobbies themselves (stated above), I am confident that re-adding these servers for CS will be a step that will greatly increase the amount of joy within our community towards the staff team. Doing so would prove to be beneficial both for us, as we will get to play our favorite game again without needing to go into an MPS, and the Mineplex staff team in its entirety, as this would act as a form of "we do listen to our community" to community members who don't feel this way already.

    B. There are a ton of players who really wish that they could, once again, gain Castle Siege stats while playing CS. Due to the game being shoved into an MPS, the achievement kits are unobtainable for the majority of players. Hell, there are even many dedicated Castle Siege players who were one or two achievements away from getting those kits, and will never be able to do so because of the fact that you cannot gain any CS stats from an MPS.

    8. "Doing so will give other groups a form of 'justification' to re-add other removed games, like wizards"

    Are there MPS's that are running for a dozen consecutive hours with a minimum of 20 players online at any given time? No.

    Would it be nice to bring back games like Wizards? Yes.

    Is there proof that it would perform well? Right now, no. However, I greatly encourage all of you Wizards fans to step up and do what we are doing right now. If you believe that Wizards should be brought back just as passionately as we do for Castle Siege, by all means, do it!

    Is there proof that CS would perform well? Yes. Absolutely. I mean, did you even read this thread up to this point? I have continued to provide justification after justification for literally every single point on this thread, starting with legitimate recorded screenshots showing what I am saying is true.

    9. "Players are only joining the MPS because 'the MPS at hand contains a large amount of players' and not because Castle Siege is a community favorite."

    This statement is beyond ignorant, to say the least. Whenever we advertise our MPS on our discord server, at least 20 players join within the first few minutes of that post going up. And, during the afternoon or on the weekends, the amount of players continues to increase over the course of the following 10-ish minutes.

    Could players be joining this MPS because there is a large number of players? Possibly. But, what causes these MPS's to become the largest running MPS on the network at certain times?

    I mean, if players only joined the MPS because there are a large number of people on it at once, the server itself would not become large as it would need to be large in the first place! It's a paradox that is only solved by becoming large on its own. IE: a large portion of the player base actually enjoys the game mode in the first place.

    10. "Discord servers are not a valid argument/form of proof"

    - What is discord?

    Discord is a place where gamers (for our purposes) come together.

    - How do Discord servers become popular?

    Lots of people share a common interest.

    - What is the common interest within our Discord server?

    Castle Siege.

    - Is this Discord server an invalid piece of evidence?

    By the definition of Discord servers and how these servers attract a lot of attention, NO! IT'S NOT!

    11. "Your evidence above shows 'a large number of people who are inactive'"

    I'm sorry, what? None of the images above show any of this server's activity. Actually, the images above of the Discord server only show the number of members within certain groups on the server. I showed these to show you the number of players who are currently within our Discord server.

    If you think that being offline means you're inactive, then I honestly cannot help you. There's this thing called "turning off your PC." There's also this thing called "being invisible." And, no, just because all 175 players are not shown online at once does not mean that they are inactive.

    12. "CS Servers were incredibly difficult to get filled."

    The new server selection system, called Butch, will benefit Castle Siege greatly. Due to the way this system works, there will no longer be multiple CS lobbies that, combined, would have allowed for a single game to start.

    Additionally, the number of players that are currently within our MPS's on a constant basis has a very large portion that consists of Castle Siege players who either do not currently have Discord or who are not yet present within the Discord server itself. Imagine just how many other players would join were CS to once again, have its own dedicated server(s) live on the network! These players would no longer be required to listen to a friend listening to the server so that their friend can give them the MPS's information for them to be able to play the game mode!

    [Credits to CheeseySF for pointing these two out to me c: ]

    @Mohawk2: If they are concerned about Castle Siege eventually dying, then they should bring it back as a "temporary" event. They bring it back, but put an emphasis on how it's only a temporary limited-time event.They would be able to see how it goes, and worst case scenario they remove it again and wouldn't be blamed by the community because it's a temporary event. If it ends up keeping the same playercount, they extend the time it stays around or decide to make it a permanent game.

    @Danese: When Castle Siege was shoved into an MPS, one of the arguably most popular features was removed. This feature was the ability to level up your kits.
    Many Castle Siegers had dedicated hundreds of hours to gain their maximum levels in their preferred kits. For instance, a couple of defender players had leveled up their knights to unlock their diamond helmets and chest plates, which were level 100 unlocks.
    I am unsure whether or not these stats still exist within the game’s code after two years. I am not a developer, nor do I know anything about what currently exists within the code of the game. I do know, however, that most, if not all, of the leveling abilities for different kits within different games have been completely purged. As such, I believe it more than probable that, at some point since 2018, the player data for CS kit levels have also been wiped. This simply seems logical.
    Regardless, even though these kits required hundreds of hours to level up and hundreds of thousands of gems to actually purchase the kit levels, many players (at the time) viewed these abilities as “unbalanced” or “overpowered.”
    Whether or not these abilities were overpowered or not is beside the point. Personally, if Castle Siege was to be reimplemented, I would love for the ability to level up your kits to be reimplemented as well. However, I am not too sure what the exact level abilities and unlocks were for each kit, simply because I don’t remember the exact unlockable abilities from over 2 years ago.
    Besides that, here are some of the requested changes I have been seeing throughout the community that I thought should be posted in an organized place.
    - Change Request List -
    Paladin Kit:
    Re-add one of the following combinations of buffs alongside resistance I (and Speed I for wolves):
    Regeneration I and Strength I
    Resistance II and Regeneration I
    Regeneration II
    One of the above, in my opinion, would rebalance the kit’s abilities with their fellow defenders.
    General Misc. Changes:
    Re-add who dealt the most damage to the king and who actually killed the king to the end-game chat display.
    Reintroduce the 5-second wolf respawn cooldown.
    Left-clicking with your axe while holding TNT should not detonate the TNT. You should be able to break fences, punch wolves, etc.
    Kit leveling system [if at all possible]
    Technical/Backend Changes:
    Reintroduction of Castle Siege Game Insights.

    [From Livicus]

    New Kit Ideas
    Note: These kits were not featured in the final 2017 Castle Siege update. That being said, I thought I would include them here to see what your thoughts are on these kits.

    Castle Assassin
    Information: This is a kit meant to counter individual ghoul assassins, hence having a longer cooldown leap and higher speed
    Description: Agile Fighter with a Vendetta for Ghouls
    Cost: 15,000 Gems (?) [Listed as an Achievement Kit in the document]
    Black Leather Armor
    Iron Sword
    32 arrows Fletched Arrows, gets one every 4 seconds, Max of 4
    4 Mushroom Stews
    NOTE: Just because the Assassin receives Fletched Arrows does not mean it has Barrage. That ability is for the Marksman and Marksman only.
    Buff: Speed I
    Ability: Leap
    Double Tap the Spacebar to Leap; mechanics and range are exactly like that of the Undead Ghoul Leap, but Cooldown is 12 seconds.

    Undead Spider
    Description: Tarantulas, tarantulas, everybody loves tarantulas. If there's just fuzz where your hamster was, it's probably because of tarantulas!
    Ability: Spider Climb Shift to climb walls It can climb walls at a rate of 2 blocks per second (about the rate of spider in SSM because that seems alright) Max of 10 (Open to discussion) blocks to be climbed at a time.
    Cost: 15,000 Gems (?) [Not listed in document]

    Possible Special Skill 1
    Needler: Right-click with a stone axe to shoot out a short-range barrage of non-poisonous arrows

    - Maybe have the stone axe be a wooden sword for the spider. That way the spider cannot run at full speed while using needler.
    - Since Spiders do not have actual arms, unlike the other kits, maybe they should not be able to break fences as easily.

    --Open to Discussion--

    To be honest, the arrows seem like a bit much. What if, instead, the spider kit could shoot out snowballs (like they were spider eggs)? This way, the attack damage values can be directly modified a bit easier than the arrows. Also, as a defender, you would know for a fact that you are being attacked by a spider. Maybe each snowball could do 1 to 1.5 hearts of attack damage each? Also, it wouldn’t be a “stream” of snowballs; instead, it would be a small “burst” Think of the Christmas head’s morph, except, of course, there would NOT be NEARLY as many snowballs nor would they continue to spawn for any period of time. The snowballs would spread similar to how these snowballs spread in the lobby (in the sense that they go in somewhat different directions, but are all directed towards 1 specific direction). I think that would make this kit very special and unique!! ( -Dan )
    I think that the number of Snowballs in the “Burst” should be (maybe) 5 to start off with. ( -Dan )

    Possible Special Skill 2
    Web Thrower: Obtain a cobweb every 15 seconds (Feel free to give a better web obtaining rate). Right-click to throw it. Maximum of 3.
    Notes: This is basically a Champions web except you get a new one every so often.

    - Although both of these abilities can be implemented at the same time, it might be best to pick one or the other so the spider kit is not too overpowered.

    To be Frank, the last thing we need in CS is for defenders to be able to get caught in webs. I mean, just think how annoying that would be as any defender. ( -Dan )

    The document containing this information can be found here:

    Document Change Log

    - Modified the kit progression to accommodate for some of the outdated features pertaining to live kits (Specifically, the undead summoner kit).
    - Modified the level 75 and level 100 unlocks for the defender knight kit, as many members can distinctively recall that the level 100 knights had a diamond chest plate and a diamond helmet.
    - Updated the information for the undead summoner kit (the original document referenced this kit’s ability to use splash potions to summon silverfish, which has [clearly] been modified for the 2017 CS Update).
    - Changed the information under “cost” for the paladin kit from having a gem price to being an achievement kit.
    - Changed the Castle Assassin kit from being labelled as an achievement kit to including a (possible) gem cost.
    - Updated the Undead Summoner’s kit progression to include its finalized progressions (from what I can recall, anyway. Please let me know if this information is incorrect).
    - Reformatted the document to allow for individuals to read the document with ease (there was an issue converting the donated PDF to a google doc, which meant that the formatting became all messed up).

    Again, special thanks to Livicus for the document that contained all of the original information!!

    Barack0bama: Within the Castle Siege community, we have been discussing the fact that there are presently fewer players online the PC server at any given time. As such, to accommodate this, many individuals agree that the starting player count should be reduced to 20, with the maximum set at a hard cap at around 50-60 players (depending on the capabilities of the server in which the game gets run on).
    Kit Progression-

    I wish it would come back honestly. For those who are more focused on stats, it is a fun thing to work towards. At the very least, kit levels would be an awesome feature to see back in Mineplex. I had two level 100 CS kits, and I was on my way to three. It was good for encouraging the use of a variety of kits. Kit Levels should return for every game in my opinion. Maybe there will be a new thread about kit levels SoonTM.

    The Old Doc-

    Hahaha, I didn’t think I would see that again, but I am glad it is there.

    The Spider Kit-

    I had my doubts when I made the Undead Spider due to spiders not usually being portrayed as “Undead,” so it is good to see you are bringing it back for discussion. Here is what I have to say about it:

    -I gave the projectile ability and comment a lot of thought so here are my split thoughts about it.

    • I think a burst of snowballs is a good idea, and you made a good point about it. That being said, the ability would not be called “Needler” anymore. What would it be called? Here are some possible name suggestions, but obviously this is open to discussion (quality will vary): Egg Shot; Spider Eggs; Spider Shot. Personally, I think my name suggestions are garbage, so suggestions are encouraged.
    • I think arrows would also work great for this kit due to the fact that it is already a feature in Mineplex (SSM Spider). While there are a lot of arrows flying around in CS, I think it will be easy to tell when they are spider arrows because the kit ability “Needler” doesn’t go very far, and they would be hitting you as a defender. I also don’t know how easy it is to program the velocity of a snowball, but i know it is definitely possible for arrows. Personally, in the end, it wouldn’t bother me which one was chosen.
    -Another point about the projectile ability listed above, some have mentioned to me that the projectile should have some sort of effect to make it a little more different and useful. I know Needler in SSM has poison, but honestly I think that Poison in CS would really only be effective against Wolves, so I propose slowness. One of the members of the CS community (this one is for you Val) suggested this and I think it is good. I think that the slowness should last for a maximum of 3 or 4 seconds for balancing purposes, but I think that would help the Spider be good for some support.

    -The Web Shot should definitely not be a feature. I can already imagine the Wolf spawn area getting flooded with webs, and not only that, but also it could easily get in the way of the Undead trying to progress (and also team trolling of course).

    -The wall climbing up to 10 blocks definitely needs to be more limited. I would say probably 6 or 7 blocks max because that way it can’t climb over nearly as many walls (again, open to discussion). On top of that, the recharge for the wall climb should be much slower than the SSM wall climbing ability.

    -The description should definitely be cut in half so it can fit on a player’s screen. I say either just have “Tarantulas, Tarantulas, everybody loves Tarantulas” or change it entirely due to the kit not necessarily being a tarantula (I love the reference but it doesn’t fit super well haha). That being said, I consulted Google and found some quotes regarding Spiders that are fun-

    ”I excel at pulling strings!”

    “I taste your fear with my leg hair.”

    “Seeing a spider is nothing. It becomes a problem when it disappears.”

    -What kind of Spider would be used for CS? Cave Spider or regular Spider? My vote goes towards regular Spiders because Cave Spiders are a pain to fight.

    Castle Assassin

    -I don’t have much to say about this, but it would for sure be useful against Ghouls and definitely Spiders if they end up in the game.

    Undead Summoner

    -Summoner could really use a slight buff, and I propose it gets the same resistance as Skeleton. This way it has more of a chance to really use the minions. If you have played Summoner, you may notice you die very fast. Let me know what you think.

    -This idea is actually your idea Dan. You mentioned it to me and I really liked it, so I think it deserves to have a place at least somewhere on this thread. Summoner’s Zombie minion is honestly not great. If you have played it, you know. Dan mentioned to me that a size 2 Magma Cube replaces Zombie as one of the minions. This Magma Cube would have custom damage similar to the little slimes, and it would be more of a tanky minion.

    Quality of Life Suggestions

    -Add /kill to CS. In the case where a player gets stuck in the ground or elsewhere for one reason or another and can’t get out, I think /kill would be helpful for those players

    -Bring back the message that says who killed the king! While I don’t really mind how it is now, it is also fun to see who killed the king.

    @Danese: Regarding Paladin Buffs W/out Kit Progressions:
    In my opinion, I feel that Paladin would greatly benefit from one of the following potion effect combinations:
    For Defenders: Resistance I [8 seconds] + Regeneration I [8 seconds]
    For Wolves: Speed I [8 seconds]
    For Defenders: Regeneration II [4 seconds]
    For Wolves: Speed I [8 seconds]
    For Defenders: Strength I [4 seconds] + Resistance I [8 seconds]
    For Wolves: Speed I [8 seconds]
    For Defenders: Resistance II [4 seconds]
    For Wolves: Speed I [8 seconds]
    Note: I've included the time (in seconds) to account for balancing impacts. If defenders got regeneration II for 8 seconds, that would basically mean healing all of their health from half a heart in less than 8 seconds... which would be absurd. However, with regeneration I for 8 seconds, they would heal about as much health as 4 mushroom stews should they be consumed every 2 seconds exactly.
    Meanwhile, wolves just get speed I since, well, they're wolves. What did you expect? Strength? On a pack of 10 wolves? ...That's called creating a diabolical plot to destroy the world! Plus, wolves already get speed I for 8 seconds from a paladin.

    [Redacted - Kit Progressions]
    [See Document Change log - 01.28.21]

    @Danese: First, I only shortened your reply because I don’t want my post to have a giant piece of quoted text here (LMFAO). Also, I just wanted to focus on this part of your reply.
    Anywho, thank you for posting this! I am always grateful for those who give counter-arguments towards an argumentative post. I do agree with you that there is a possibility that a public CS lobby might not gain as much traction as we are gaining within an MPS. However, I truly believe that is to be determined. I feel that, through Mohawk’s idea, this could be definitively determined.
    Additionally, I do, in fact, currently, work with GI as a map tester. So believe me when I say I completely understand that the idea of a game being removed due to it being unbalanced is not true at all. And, believe me, I understand that those who are working behind the scenes- QAT, MTT, GI, etc. etc.- do, absolutely, care about the games here on the network and would not support any game’s removal based on balancing issues that have the potential of being fixed without reworking the entire game as a whole (games like type wars would be an example of a game whose balancing issues would require the game to be completely reworked, though their removal is not solely based on this issue [many players did not enjoy the game from what I can remember. But, it was a very long time ago and I was only 15 when the game was in beta testing (I’m 19 now)]).
    The reason that I included this “argument” within my thread is that there are many individuals who cite this reasoning for why the game should not be revived. And no, these individuals are not staff members (at least, not from what I can recall). Nevertheless, I felt that including this counter-argument was necessary considering how often I, personally, see it brought up in other threads regarding the revival of this game mode.
    @Danese: I have actually PM’d @nolawn regarding this topic. This is their reply through our PM’s:
    @Danese: I can see your concern regarding the potential for a consistent player count. Currently, the data that has been gained has been gathered entirely from Mineplex Player Servers. Due to this, there is currently no data pertaining to how well or long a dedicated CS server would run games.
    That stated, with the idea presented by @Mohawk2, this data could be attained (for better or worse). To be honest, the data presented from our MPS’s, in my opinion, justifies further research into this topic. Mohawk’s idea would allow us to effectively gather this data while also putting no long-term risk towards Mineplex as a whole. If the servers die off again, then we’ll have our answer. But, if they don’t, then there’s a reason to keep these dedicated CS servers running.
    Why shoot down an idea before even trying it, especially when there’s a large quantity of evidence supporting the very low probability of this idea failing?
    @Danese: I’m not going to lie, because Castle Siege is in an MPS (and a lot of players are playing the game), they cannot physically remove the stats of Castle Siege. Why? CS has achievement kits that rely on the players’ Castle Siege stats to be available. Unless they completely change the way that these kits are made public, removing these statistics would make these achievement kits unobtainable. Considering the traction this thread has received, and the incredible support that CS's revival has gained from the CS community- and the rest of the general Mineplex community- as a whole, I don’t think removing these statistics would end… favorably…
    And, I mean, if they are going to change how these achievement kits are obtained in their entirety, both regarding player statistics and the classification of these kits, would it not be a safer move to first attempt our idea? At the very least, if this fails like many Production team members fear it might, they would at least have a form of “justification” to do this. Right now, doing so would be a poor decision since 1. The traction this thread has gained 2. The dedication of those who play CS and 3. the lack of evidence to support their idea that reimplementing CS, at least as a permanent game, would not work (and the large amount of evidence presented supporting the contrary).
    And though there are many players who may end up playing the game solely to gain additional CS statistics, that is just one way of playing just about every game. Even those outside of Minecraft. However, if CS was an unenjoyable game mode, would these players continue to grind for all of the potential CS stats? Sure, there are some of those who would, definitely, do so. But, in my speculation, I feel like those individuals who grind game modes that they genuinely do not enjoy are the minority.
    @Danese: In my opinion, right now, this is speculation at best. I truly believe that, if the game were to be brought back, even for a little bit, this speculatory statement would be able to actually be empirically evaluated. Whether that means this statement would be proven right or wrong is to be seen. Nevertheless, if the decision to reimplement CS permanently is to be definitively decided, I believe that reimplementing the game as a temporary event would prove how well the game would manage, one way or another.

    Statements like these are only backed by actual data from 2018 and late 2017. This was two years ago. The data that was provided when this game, and a large number of others, were removed are, presently, outdated. Things change. Mindsets evolve. Data based on popularity is never fixed. Mineplex, from what I can infer, would risk absolutely nothing if CS were brought back for two or three weeks. Actually, they could stand to benefit no matter how it turns out. If the game flops, Mineplex now has empirical evidence to justify its permanent removal. If it flips, Mineplex can “pat themselves on the back” and make statements like “SEE!? We listen to the community! We brought back CS due to popular demand from our COMMUNITY!”

    No matter how it turns out, we cannot simply deny this idea in its entirety without at least attempting to do this. The large number of players that continue to play the game in our MPS’s is more than enough “proof” needed to at the very least “test the waters.”

    @nolawn has stated that the Production Team, though presently not having any plans for its permanent return, is open to the idea of having it come back as an event. (though, this is simply me restating his message. Nolawn's reply to my PM is listed above as a direct screenshot [and yes, I got his permission to quote him on his statement. I posted his message as a screenshot to add credibility regarding the accuracy of my quoting of his statement <3 ])
    In my opinion, right now, all we can do is be patient and continue to fight for our favorite game mode. And, as an additional note, as of 3:38 pm MST today (Friday, May 8th), we have just gained our 190th user within our CS discord! There is a permanent Discord invitation link on my profile for those of you who are interested. c:

    @Fusafez: As someone who played Castle Siege before it was removed, I believe myself qualified to say that Nrrillinthas is right in a few regards.
    First, however, I'll address your counter-argument. In your post, you cite DMT and CW as two primary examples for why fear of hackers shouldn't prevent the return of a well-loved mini game. While it's true that there will always be hackers, CS is fundamentally different from both DMT and CW. While I'm not an avid player of either DMT or CW, I know that both games have a significantly lower player requirement for a game to start, and they both have a much lower player cap on how many people can be in a single game. This means that a single hacker can ruin a game for about a dozen people before a Mineplex staff member removes them. I apologize if my count of the players required for DMT or CW is incorrect, but the point stands. Unlike these two (and most) games, Castle Siege, even in its later days, required 40 players to begin the game. A single hacker could ruin the game for over 3 dozen people. Therefore, comparing Castle Siege to smaller-scale (in lobby size) games such as DMT or CW isn't justification for dismissing Nrrillinthas's point.
    Now, I will agree with you when you say that hackers shouldn't stop CS from coming back. No game deserves to be ruined by excessive cheating the way CS was in the past, and Nrrillinthas makes a good point that having CS brought back will strip players of their power to remove cheaters from games.
    I, for one, propose a new feature: a voting system to remove players from lobbies. In this proposed system, players would be able to open a menu, much like the game menu in MPS, where they could cast a vote for a player to be removed from their game lobby. If a majority of players in the lobby (say 70, 80, or even 90%) voted for a single player to be removed, that player would be removed (not banned) from the game lobby. This feature would allow players to identify cheaters in their own games and prevent hackers from ruining games like CS.
    As I suggest this, I know that people will claim that this can be used to bully and ostracize innocent players, and I agree that this is theoretically possible. This possibility is why I suggest that a large percentage of players would have to agree in order for anyone to be kicked. Sure, it won't be perfect, and it will likely be abused at one time or another, but players who are voted to be kicked would be able to report toxic behavior such as this on the forums. In addition, adopting your argument, just because something has the potential to be ruined, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented.
    As an example, I bring up Mineplex's current anti-cheat: GWEN. Unless you've been living under a rock, you'll know that many players across Mineplex are falsely banned by GWEN. However, GWEN does punish hackers, and false bans can be appealed on the forums. Despite the system's flaws, most people would agree that GWEN improves the overall experience on Mineplex. My proposed system of "voting out" alleged hackers would function similarly. And, this system could even be implemented across Mineplex, not just in Castle Siege lobbies.
    Of course, I'm not saying that my solution is perfect (nothing is), but I do believe that it would allow a genuine discussion about Castle Siege's return to flourish.


    @Fusafez: I start by thanking you for the honesty. I admit it's unrealistic to believe that a system such as the one I proposed wouldn't be abused, so I understand your opposition to the idea. Now, I agree that an extended discussion about such a system merits its own thread, so I will only further address the elements of your reply that pertain to CS.
    First off, and I say this in the nicest way possible, you have obviously never played a game of CS that was ruined by a blatant hacker before its removal. I say this not to be rude or dismiss your argument, but merely to make a point: most hackers were cheating quite obviously, ruining the game for everyone involved. In your reply, you say that games like CS are immune to hackers. From personal experience, I argue that the opposite is true, and as Nrrillinthas mentioned, hackers helped kill CS. I have seen countless hackers join the undead team, fly across the map to the throne room, and kill the king in under a minute, using other hacks such as speed and kill aura to avoid being killed by the defenders. Hackers can easily 20v1 in CS, and they do have a larger effect in CS than in games such as CW because a single hacker ruins the game for over 3 dozen people. Defenders will be upset that they are basically guaranteed to lose against the hacker, and the undead will be upset that they don't get a chance to play the game before they win.
    You also claim that most players won't even notice a hacker in a game of CS, and respectfully, this is incorrect. The kind of hacks that ruin large-scale games like CS are, as I mentioned above, obvious. I find it highly unlikely that members of the undead team won't notice someone on their team flying across the map at the start of the game. I also find it highly unlikely that defenders won't notice a player flying, using speed, and using kill aura on them. I've personally played on both teams during games where both of these things have happened, and even though the average Mineplex player is not well-versed in different types of hacks, I (and many others) noticed almost immediately that a player was hacking and began trying to locate a staff member to resolve the issue.
    Finally, you bring up the fact of removing or banning hackers. Since this was such a prominent issue with CS, I will address it only in that context. Hackers in CS often had alternate accounts to bypass being banned by Mineplex staff. Therefore (in this common instance), gathering evidence and writing reports to ban each individual hacked account is not only ineffective towards preventing that person from continuing to hack, but it also won't prevent the game from being ruined. Reports aren't resolved instantly or even relatively quickly, and this is for good reason; the report needs to be properly considered so that innocent players aren't punished. This is also why the most effective way to save a game of CS from a hacker is by calling upon a staff-member in-game before too many players quit, making it impossible to play. Of course, before it was removed, multiple people in a CS game would try to reach out to staff members through the StaffRequest community or by locating one in a different lobby. However, this unfortunately proved useless at times because Mineplex staff members cannot be on stand-by simply to ban hackers on CS. While many CS hackers were successfully banned by moderators, a larger amount weren't. I don't bring this up to be negative towards the staff team; they're human beings too, and they can't be in two places at once. When players see obvious hacking continuing for multiple games, they quickly get frustrated and quit the game. Sure, some people will be patient and wait for a staff member to ban the hacker, but hackers often have multiple alternate accounts that they use to come back and ruin the game once again.
    In order for CS to be brought back, there would need to be a reliable way to remove hackers from games quickly. If not, CS would just die again, and the motion for its revival would be greatly diminished.

    @Fusafez: As a stated in the beginning of my reply, it was a general discussion about hackers in CS, completely separate from my suggestion to "vote out" cheaters. I apologize if that was unclear, but I agree with you that fixing the anti-cheat would benefit the CS community. Further, I would recommend expanding the staff team so that moderators are more easily reachable to remove hackers, but of course, this is Mineplex's decision, which is why I didn't go into detail about either course of action.
    EDIT: Just an FYI, you can see players' nametags in CS, so identifying cheaters is easier for both staff members and players looking to make reports.


    @Paladise: Back in the "Good old days", I had fond memories of playing Castle Siege, but I think it's current state in MPS's is fine, and adding it back in as a full gamemode will not be beneficial.
    Argument #1:
    "Nobody plays Castle Siege"
    I understand that you guys own a discord server, but how many of those 135+ members are online at given time? Much less actually playing Castle Siege on Mineplex?
    Argument #2:
    "There were times where the games would not start due to nobody being on the server."
    Although your counter evidence of the state of mixed arcade is depressing, let me remind you that there is MIN lobbies rotating through each, so there is way more players in each mini gamemode under mixed arcade than previously shown in your screenshots.
    You also contradict yourself here saying:
    even though earlier you said that you have games open 12 hours at maximum. That doesn't seem "rare". Taking into account the fact that within this 12 hour time span, you have 15 players online in the mps, means that if it were implemented, games could not start for a portion of that already small 12 hours.
    Argument #3:
    "I don't think we can spare the dev time."
    Now in this section you mention that there should dev time allotted to castle siege. Does that mean that there are bugs or glitches that haven't been fixed yet? Even before knowing about these bugs, dev time is extremely limited especially when there are a lot of gamemodes that need to be fixed not including GWEN.
    Argument #4:
    "The game gets laggy when handling a large number of players on the server."
    Back when I used to play Castle Siege there was a considerable amount of lag in each lobby. To me, MPS's don't seem less "sturdy" than regular game lobbies, especially after going to many events in EVENT-1. Reducing the amount of players to start a game will let games start more often, but will take away the backbone of Castle Siege. Castle Siege is meant to be played with a lot of players. This could even be seen during the Area 51 event, where the most players in each lobby was 80 (I believe).
    Argument #4a:
    I believe it is necessary to redesign the game if you are going to SIGNIFICANTLY lower the playercount in the lobby, therefore taking up much dev time. As in argument for this point, we both lack evidence in either of our views here.
    Argument #5:
    I agree with you here, I believe Castle Siege is fun :D
    Argument #6:
    Also going to agree with you here.
    Argument #7:
    You can just play it in an MPS. Your evidence here is basically repeatedly from previous points and not shedding any new information. You even admit it that players leaving mid game will be a LARGE issue in running Castle Siege. As for your later points here, I NEVER remember seeing a Castle Siege game with over 100 players. Furthermore, instead of just moving Castle Siege to a full time game, you can just make all the kits available (for Castle Siege only) to combat that issue.
    Argument #9:
    "Players are only joining the MPS because 'the MPS at hand contains a large amount of players' and not because Castle Siege is a community favorite."
    I have not even considered this, but I totally agree with it. Probably one of the only reasons it is able to run for 8 hours is it because newcomers join it since it is the FIRST mps to show up.
    Argument #10:
    I agree with you.
    Argument #11:
    "Your evidence above shows 'a large number of people who are inactive'"
    In one of your discord images, it says "Offline: 79" at the very bottom, almost as if you were trying to crop this out... And being offline does mean being inactive since they are not in a Castle Siege mps.
    Argument #12:
    "CS Servers were incredibly difficult to get filled."
    This is true, and is the main reason why Castle Siege was removed. I don't see how your argument about Butch is helping. Even if you have one single castle siege lobby open at any given time, sometimes it will not run.
    The best solution I see to this, is to simply keep it in MPS, but allow all the kits to be accessible by the players. Most of your main argument to move it to a regular game server is the fact that "In your experience", mps's are laggier. This seems more like an opinion and not justified evidence.[/QUOTE]

    1. We are currently at 363 members and are continuing to gain new members by the day. Presently, 119 members are listed as online, with 245 members presently listed as offline.
    Also, just because they are offline does not mean they don't play the game.
    For example,
    As of me writing this, the following users are presently listed as offline:
    adorefoah (a discord moderator)
    burntchicken115 (a community builder)
    comrade64 (ninjaboy also a moderator)
    And many, many more.
    Sorry, I don't feel like scrolling through 245 accounts.
    Lord_of_Creeper is the owner of the Mineplex community csforever. Moepses's name is Bob. Sheepea is one of our MPS hosts. S13sb is named Spencer...
    Basically, they are well-known community members who are continuously active through the Network, both in CS and in general.
    Oh, and Hazeae24 AKA Hailey is a former Sr. Moderator. She is one of the (I think) 7 people with the Castle Sieger tag.
    Basically, just because they were listed as offline within a screenshot does not even remotely mean that they are not active.
    However, if you would like more evidence against your claim, why not join our Discord server yourself?
    With regards to how many players actually play in our MPS's, every day I see more and more new faces in the servers. Out of the over 360 players within our Discord server, I can confidently say that just about every single one of them has, at some point, logged into our MPS servers.
    And, no. We don't get MPS servers with 300+ players on them at once. Don't be absurd. People live in different parts of the globe and log on at different points throughout the day. That's how life works.

    2. My argument was not that nobody is playing the Mixed Arcade games. It was (and is) that there are many servers that are consistently empty: one of the main reasons as to why CS lost its own lobby in the first place.

    3. No, that does not mean there are bugs or glitches that have not been fixed yet. It means there needs to be developer time put into ensuring that the lobby is running properly and that it is maintained... you know, just like every other lobby?

    4/4a. Believe what you would like, but the fact is that we have actually played games with 20 players and many of us know that the game is balanced when it is a 10v10 match.
    Additionally, we have actually had lobbies run in MPS servers and have witnessed the MPS decline in terms of TPS, even more so than EVENT-1. However, the times that the TPS drops the most is while loading up a given map. Some maps load more slowly than others.
    My hypothesis is due to how many players are being loaded in one single area at once. For instance, Shangri-La seems to lag the most with excessively large lobbies, as the undead are all clumped together in their spawn. Meanwhile, Icebound valley seems to lag the least in the same scenario, as the undead are scattered across a very wide area which consists of a much lower player-per-chunk ratio than on Shangri-La.

    7. You could do that... or you could consider the fact that the vast majority of people who are in favor of this would prefer A. to be able to earn statistics and B. to earn the achievements of the game mode.

    9. Even if that were the case (it's not, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is), a lot of the people who are joining the MPS who are not within our Discord server end up staying and, eventually, joining the Discord server anyways.
    As I said (and showed), we have 363 members and are continuing to gain new players every day. The fact that players are still joining our Discord server and are still actively playing on our MPS's and MCS's outweighs the possibility of people only joining because the MPS at hand has a large number of players. And, if they don't like the game... why do they end up staying?

    11. No, I did not "crop out" anything. Why is it that whenever people have a problem with screenshot evidence the first thing they jump to as a secondary claim is that the image has been "cropped" or "edited" or "forged?"
    I use Gyazo. Sorry that my Discord application does not have a built-in feature for screenshots of the entire screen.
    If Discord does, in fact, have this feature, can somebody please tell me how to use it?
    Regardless, I have already addressed this point above... hence why I am focusing on your secondary claim regarding this topic.

    12. I have A. already addressed the argument for lowering the player count and B. given more than enough reasonings and physical evidence to support the contrary.

    With the modifications requested prior, the games will be able to start and will be able to hold games that run for hours on end.

    As a side note, the point here is that there are hundreds of players who vocally want the game to be returned. Not only have I provided numerous quantities of actual evidence, but there are also 363 players in the Discord server alone who agree with this game's revival and over 150 posts on this thread alone also in favor of this game's revival.
    Even if it is brought down to a matter of opinion, the fact is that the popular opinion is for this game to be brought back onto the live Network... The vast amount of physical evidence, in this hypothetical scenario, is just icing on the cake at this point.
    Note: I saw that your post was edited 45 minutes ago. Your post that I quoted above is outdated... sorry about that.

    @Paladise's Edit:
    I just logged onto Mineplex to see if your MPS was open, and it seemed like it wasn't. I know this isn't really reflective of what it is really like, but it isn't that good of news when it is peak weekend time in a time where the majority of people are staying at home, with a lot of free time.
    I also logged in again yesterday to see a lobby that had like 12 people but after 20 minutes, died.

    Firstly, I'd like to thank you for a thoughtful response. Although I only quote your ending note, I did read it through, but Dan beat me to it, and I couldn't think of a better reply!
    Anyway, the reason an MPS isn't open today is because it's Father's Day in America, so we told our Discord staff and game hosts to take the day off and spend time with their families. On weekends, we usually average around 35 players throughout the day and peak around 50-60 players, depending on the week

    @christxqn: Bob, just bc they are not in the MPS or discord does not mean they do not want it revived. I am not a player of the CS MPS however I am a huge advocate for its return. Many of my friends will agree.

    @rmotheram: I have noticed something when looking at all the posts on this thread. Most of the players who are posting on this thread, participating in the discussion and are on the Discord are just regular players. Very few of the players are Mineplex staff members. I think that having some staff support can give a strong push in our movement to convince production to fully bring this game back. Since staff are a probably lot closer to the production team than we are, they can probably help out a lot if we can get their support.
    @Young_Inventor: I pretty sure that Staff are purposely avoiding this thread because they don't want CS to be added. I've noticed Staff always say "CS will die after a week" whenever CS comes up somewhere, despite the fact this has been disproved by this thread alone. I think they realized that they are out of arguments for why CS shouldn't be added, so they are avoiding this thread, and hoping it slowly dies out. Threads as big as this one don't go unnoticed by Staff, so I don't really think they aren't responding to this because they don't notice it. There's probably some behind the scenes reason they don't want to add CS that they aren't allowed to tell us, so that might also have something to do with this.

    @Danese: Regarding @Young_Inventor's and @rmotheram's replies, I highly doubt that the staff team, production team, development team, etc. etc., are purposely avoiding this thread because of a conspiracy within the shadows to prevent CS from being reimplemented onto the Network. As a matter of fact, there are a number of Ideas Team members who are in favor of CS being brought back. @nolawn has expressed his want for CS to be implemented onto the network multiple times... Actually, they are an old CS player from back in the day. #ShaiymFTW!
    Anyways, the probable cause for a sincere lack of replies to this thread is simply due to the fact that, right now, there is a lot going on behind the scenes that have resulted in the rejection of this idea to become- well- no longer an accurate representation of Production's stance on this idea. This is, of course, pure speculation; however, I would like to add the fact that this community has, clearly, expressed an immense desire for CS to be reimplemented onto the live server. I know many staff members personally who are even more passionate about this Network and these communities than I am!
    Currently, the fact is that the answer to our request is no longer "no." And, because of this, it has become difficult for any staff member to definitely state an answer about whether or not CS will be brought back.

    @Frazuki: @Danese I see where you're coming from, but I personally don't believe or feel in any way that Castle Siege should be back.
    There was already a similar post that was on about bringing back Castle Siege at the time when Area-51 came out on September 2019. However it was counted as Not Planned during that time and I think it's going to get marked as Not Planned again
    Firstly the game was very laggy and it was bearable to play, this probably was because back in the older times there was so much players.
    Secondly the actual reason of why the game was taken out in the first place was because there was a point of when there was multiple CS lobbies that were below 10 players and players probably didn't have the patience to wait in the lobby to expect more players to join. Castle Siege got very unpopular so it got taken down, it's the same similar reason of why some of the other Mineplex games were removed.
    Also Area-51 had a max player count of 80 players, the exact same player count that Castle Siege had and if that Castle Siege comes back as really laggy like it was before it was removed. Then players wouldn't want to play that game because like I said from above, it would be unplayable with all the heavy lag.

    This thread is actually "In Discussion". Now we have proper evidence to back it up. Also everyone is in homes.
    I think you contradicted your point here. Mineplex doesn't have any players any more. Starting games at 20 or 30 players as suggested in this thread would keep lag away.

    The reason the game did not have any running lobbies was because the starting requirments were way too high for mineplex's player count. Lowering start requirements and having a custom queuing system as mentioned in the thread will make games start.

    The Area-51 game had guns and tons of players. Castle Siege uses vanilla features and is able to be played with a minimum of 20 players in our experience, and does not lag in my experience (and my computer is bad). Castle Siege has proven that it has a player count.

    In conclusion, comparing the gamemode to Area 51 does not justify why Castle Siege would not flourish; They are two drastically different games.

    (I have edited this a little immediately after posting as it was a bit disorganized)

    @Danese: @CheeseySF 's statements regarding @Frazuki's post are, in my opinion, 100% accurate.

    One thing I would like to add here is that just because something was rejected once before does not automatically mean that the opinions of those behind the decision are unable to be changed in any way at all.

    Mineplex's staff team is not filled with robots. The members within all possess free will and the ability to use reason. Just because something was true over 2 months ago does not merit its factuality now, especially when the subject in question is in regards to a situation whose aspects are completely and continuously dynamic.

    @Fruiit: What % of them actually play frequently to some extent?

    Evidence #1 for the amount of players on at one time in a mps lacks any reliability to back the point in how many players join the mps at one time. No average number of players throughout possibly 7 days

    3. This number of people is only enough probably to start just one game. And going back to when this gamemode was a part Mineplex's games before being removed and moved over to MPS. Linking back to Evidence 2, Castle Seige is still going to have the same occurring problem like some other games such as Domination has, the fact that it has a very small player base surrounding it, with the only exception being Timezone. Why is this a highlighted problem? Well keep in mind the factors surrounding its growth and peak hour. Timezone, Quarantine, and Player Habits
    Timezone - A lot of the time (mainly in perspective of someone from the UK) I frequently only get times when the MPS is up between 4pm - 7pm - 12am+. This might not look so bad, even for EU people this only peaks from what I experienced before at roughly 9pm - 10pm. This then quickly dips down but what if we put something into consideration...
    Quarantine - Obviously a massive global issue, countries internationally are forcing everyone to stay at home, work at home, protect peoples live, essential travel only. Being stranded all this time means no school for the people who play therefore more time to play the typical games you would often play. So from what I've experienced these peaks could really differentiate as more and more people return to school (most likely in september) they have less time to play, more time spent into getting the education required for them to progress further in life.
    Player Habits - As a person like me, how I got into this was pretty simple, was bored, looked at mps list because. What else would I of done? Saw this large MPS of castle siege players, joined it, was relatively small to begin with but maintained a consistent playerbase as the night progressed. As it is an active, regular and consistent player mps count, I felt more motivated and dedicated to play castle seige, but linking quickly back to the issue of quarantine, stranded at home, playing more of lets say mineplex castle seige mps', you play that everyday for 7d, the player gets burnt out, doesn't feel dedicated anymore to continue. This isn't too surprising to be honest as castle seige is a very constant game which has the 3 Basic undead kits and 2 Defender kits, but long-term, I really couldn't seen this going too far past revival hype

    5. It's not that basic as "oh dev's are so lazy, do more game developing". These people have lives such as us, they often have a Job in real life they need to do (not just coding for a minecraft server) and to treat them like work horses on a regular basis is disgusting, especially to people who actually develop for the people who play. If Castle Siege isn't going anywhere long-term like games such as Cake Wars, Speed Builders, potentially Champions as a whole. There is not much need to continuously develop and should be prioritising gamemodes which need it the most to keep that player count flowing. Common message of "Dev's don't do anything" As before keep In mind they are issues like the ones you have and jobs which (most of you) will soon be looking for and don't have the time to dedicate 8hours+ into tweaking, implementing maps, refresh of kits, promotion of the gamemode, especially if they know it isn't going anywhere in 1 months time after revival hype
    all I can say is they're laughing because of how much they know That its actually unbalanced.

    9. Most of this is players being pinged on discord regarding that an mps is starting. How many genuinely join via lobby advertisements?

    11. Keep in mind there are 380~ from when this post was made? How many play on the mps at any given time? On average from what I've seen with your "Evidence" and my experiences, I can only see between 30 - 60 people roughly. That's almost 6 - 10 times the amount of people on the discord server. And from what you're saying, this is valid evidence? Was this forum post made in a rush or something? You can have as many people as you want in a discord server, 5.5k, 5k, 6k and the same amount of people will speak in the #general chat. More people, DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. You need to focus more on the player count, not how many have pulled over one time, saw the discord link, joined the server and how many FREQUENTLY play castle seige, this doesnt have to be once or 5 times a day for like 1 month, this can be around 4 times in the space of 1 day and 2 games in the space of the next day and maybe 6 times on Saturday. If this was the case, why is just 1 screenshot "Justified evidence"? Linking back to a previous point, get an average in the span of either 7-14 days to get an average how many people play on a regular basis, not there igns or anything too specific like that.
    My conclusion: Evidence, sloppy and unreliable in general, player base can only fill 1 lobby, with only 1 lobby filled, the other is going to be bone dry with most likely no one joining so people give up searching in the end. I really can not see this going anywhere in the long-term apart from just 40 players (same as the MPS) at any given time, very biased in which if the teams are really unbalanced due to people queuing or parties on Defender team. The undead is going to have 0 chance at winning any map. Even Dekare and Mystical (one of the most easiest maps to win as undead) and after probably a day to being unable to win, potentially spawn camped, you are not going to be motivated to continue. When it comes to the discord. Even at this time 20:40pm BST. There is only 19?!? People on, the server 143 people online?!?!!? I really shouldn't focus on the biggest Bollocks I have seen but Developers, I don't think they see this going anywhere after update hype, neither do I. It could make a much more diverse range of gamemodes but as before, update hype, player count rises, hypes gone, spirals down to the point no lobbies are going to be active or enough players to start.. Don't revive CS, more time, more development

    -1 on my side.

    I do not know where you got the idea that referencing the fact that the development team should make time for this game by modifying their present schedule equated with the proposed concept that I was calling the development team "horses."
    Yes, they have lives. Yes, they have a job. Yes, they have priorities. And yes, they are people... That is completely irrelevant to the idea of modifying their present time schedule to accommodate for a game that is clearly loved by a large number of people. Have you seen the other 180+ replies to this thread? No, I thought not...
    So please, don't insult me by implying I have no respect for the development teams that work on and with this Network.
    And yes, saying that I am referring to the developers of Mineplex as "horses" IS implying this very concept.
    Oh, did I forget to mention that the development team gets paid to work here? For information, visit jobs.mineplex.com.
    Also, one final note: the support on this thread is overwhelming... Surely, if you would like some form of "evidence" that meets your requirements, then the well over 180 replies supporting this game's return is a start.
    Edit: 06.26.20 6:07 pm EST

    pRoOf ThAt PeOpLe WaNt To PlAy Cs AnD oNlY cS!11

    Note: Because I know there are some people out there who don't get sarcasm... this is sarcasm. People don't only want to play CS any more than they only want to play CW or BLD or SB or MB or [insert other games' abbreviations here].

    @Fusafez: While not all of our Discord members play daily, or even demi-daily, it's wholly unrealistic to expect that of them. Many players don't even log onto Mineplex daily, even during the current quarantine for a multitude of reasons. Plus, there will obviously be more players on certain days of the week (such as Saturdays and Sundays) because people have other obligations from Monday to Friday, such as work, internships, summer camps, etc. In addition, a good portion of our community lack Discord, but connect with us through our in-game community, CSForever (lead by @Lord_of_Creeper), which currently has 698 members.
    Were CS to have its own lobby, it would attract more players than our MPS for numerous reasons, such as exp, gems, shards, or stats, which have been elaborated by others. Plus, most people don't actively check which MPS's are up, so they wouldn't even know there was a CS MPS running.
    As for your argument about quarantine, denying a game's return simply because it's growth is during a time of increasing player count on Mineplex simply doesn't make sense. Of course, as player count across Mineplex will decrease when things return to normal, the number of players available to play CS will decrease also, but the same will also be true of Cake Wars, Minestrike, Turf Wars, and other popular gamemodes, which remain popular regardless. The massive number of replies this thread has received proves that CS would be no different, especially considering the number of players that aren't even active on the forums.
    There is a dedicated community of players who play CS often, and I myself play almost daily on the MPS. Personally, I couldn't imagine playing Cake Wars every day, it would get repetitive and boring in my opinion, but I know there are many who would disagree, and rather enjoy grinding Cake Wars on a regular basis, a game with only 4 kits (counting the achievement kit). In comparison, CS has two different teams with diverse objectives: the defenders (with 3 kits, counting achievement kit) and the undead (with 4 kits, counting achievement kit). This is not to say that Cake Wars is "constant" or basic, but rather that players getting "burnt out" isn't a result of a game being bad, it's simply personal preference, and the CS community is both dedicated and motivated to bringing back the game we love.
    Dan was not calling the developers lazy by any means. He was simply asking that they devote their limited time and resources to a game that they already have the code for and is largely loved by the community.
    We've had lobbies decline in players (go down to around 10) as it gets late in a few time zones, then regain players (averaging about 25 or 30) entirely through lobby advertisements. Even if they only stay for one or two games, new players join as they leave, and it's simply not realistic (as I've mentioned above) to expect new players to stay in a single lobby for hours on end, but that doesn't mean they don't enjoy the game. I play Cake Wars on occasion, and I find it fun, but I wouldn't play it for more than half an hour straight.
    As for the number of members we have on Discord, that's a representation of support from our community. Many of our Discord members have jobs or other family obligations, even during the pandemic, so of course they don't play regularly. However, that doesn't mean they don't want CS to come back, or that they don't play at all. We often attract players who join because of lobby advertisements or seeing our MPS in the menu.
    First off, we're not asking for twenty lobbies, only one or two. As I've stated above, an actual lobby on the live network would attract more players to CS, who would then join our community. In addition, the return of CS would bring back older players, who would also help fill up lobbies.
    After playing in MPS, I can assure you that 20v20 games are very balanced, and multiple community members have expressed that they enjoy the game more with these numbers because it's easier for undead to sneak around, etc. As for the two "easiest maps to win as undead", Trench of Dekare is actually a more balanced map, with a pretty split number of wins for both teams. Mythical Palace (I believe this is the map you called "Mystical") has a good amount of smart leaps which ghouls can utilize to move around the map quickly, but is actually rush-heavy because of its layout and can be won by experienced defenders. That aside, Helms Revamped is another balanced map, and Icebound Valley and Sunstone Stronghold are the two most undead-biased maps at the moment, as argued by the community, where the undead win often, so players quitting because undead can't win isn't a realistic issue with the current state of the game.


    Just over two years ago I made an Enjin thread regarding bringing Castle Siege. It was 10 pages long on Google Docs (1.5 spacing, 12 point font, Times New Roman), and it was a nightmare to read. It gained some momentum, but it eventually died. I was pretty sure that was the end of it all. However, here we are today, with a new thread that has made it under the “in discussion” section.
    Dan, you made an incredible thread. It made me tear the first time I read the post and the comments. You have clearly put a lot of time into this, and it seems to be paying off. You’re a hero, my guy. Thank you for making this.

    "DAN'S REPLY TO @DooDooBug25"
    Joe, when I first made this thread, I honestly had no idea just how far it would go. It brings tears to my eyes, as well. I crafted the Original Post, as well as this thread revamp, out of the passion I posses towards this game and out of the love I hold towards our community. I sincerely hope that we are able to bring back the gamemode that continues to bring all of us closer and closer together. <3


    1. As of the 20th of May, I have officially submitted a map submission containing many of the ideas and feedback that you guys have contributed towards the Castle Siege maps presently live on the network. This submission contains fixes and updates to all of the current maps with the exception of Mythical Palace (simply because I had already submitted the fixes for this map earlier this month).
    2. We have still been attaining a constant average of around 20 players on our Mineplex Player Servers, even on weekdays. Additionally, on the weekends, we have been peaking at over 60 players towards late morning to early afternoon!
    3. Our Discord staff team has become even more organized and efficient! The official server owner, @Element_Uranium, has enforced a specific standard for dealing with community-issued punishments in order to create consistency regarding rule enforcement. And, our Discord server has been completely overhauled in order to make the server easier to navigate as any member!

    The reasons for Castle Siege's removal consisted of a few factors. Although I could list them myself, I would much rather quote the individuals who originally gave those reasons back in 2018.
    I have directly quoted the individuals listed below from their posts on the old Enjin website; however, the manner in which these quotes are addressed is sourced from our informational website. You can visit our #ReviveCS Mineplex Forums Group page for more information on the #ReviveCS movement.

    In her address to the Mineplex community, titled “Addressing Concerns” and published on February 22nd, 2018, former Mineplex Community Manager, Nuclear_Poptart (in regards to the removal of numerous Mineplex game modes), states: “ Production assessed our games on 3 basic aspects: most popular, in terms of players; what had the potential for growth in the future; and what was user-friendly, and welcoming for both old & new players (especially the latter).” (Nuclear_Poptart). She then continues, stating: “Like we’ve said and come through on before, 2018 is going to [be] a year of heavy-hitting and putting quality first… Continuing this trend, we want to focus on updating our current games with quality content & produce the highest quality experience we can offer. We don’t want to be the kind of server that waits months at a time before fixing problems & giving the community what they want.”
    In his address to the Mineplex community, titled “Re: Recent News” and published on February 22nd, 2018, former Mineplex Project Manager and Leadership Team member SJSampson states: “We currently have 3 (count em) 3 PC devs. Alex and Sam being the only frontend devs who ever touch games. There are only so many hours in a month and we feel it would be unfair and unrealistic to keep as many games as Mineplex has featured in the main hub as if they are good examples of the quality standards we want to have going forward.” (SJSampson). He continues, stating: “ As a lot of you know, the EULA changes that came a few years back have hurt every server considerably in terms of revenue. This is why we have pushed cosmetics and other items into the shop in order to continue supporting the server by having people producing updates, games, and maps. We would love to have the resources in order to maintain and create new games, but at this time it just isn't possible.”
    SJSampson, continuing to address the reasoning behind many games’ removals, states: “We had to choose a reasonable amount of games that we could keep regular, quality updates rolling out to in the foreseeable future, that's how we landed at the list of games we are keeping featured. We chose the games that had communities with consistent player counts that could keep games going more than just on the weekends” (SJSampson).

    Viewing their statements now, it is quite clear that some of their statements are... quite laughable!
    "We don’t want to be the kind of server that waits months at a time before fixing problems & giving the community what they want" (Nuclear_Poptart).
    /team bug in nano games intensifies
    Anyways, I am confident that this thread has downright disproven most, if not all, of the above reasonings for this game's removal and, further, has provided an abundance of evidence and logical reasoning regarding Castle Siege's justified return.
    "We chose the games that had communities with consistent player counts that could keep games going more than just on the weekends" (SJSampson).
    Laughs in blatant and abundant community support!

    Updated Thread to Include CheeseySF's Arguments
    Updated Thread to Include Additional Arguments

    Added a poll to this thread after two months of this thread's existence.
    Added "Dear Mineplex" to the thread

    Reorganized the Entirety of this Original Post
    Removed the "Sincerely Danese" aspects of the original content and placed them at the very bottom of the thread
    Added "The ENTIRE CS Community"

    Placed the Original Thread's content into a spoiler, making Dear Mineplex the first (and only) piece of content outside of a spoiler
    Added a fourth argument to Dear Mineplex highlighting our Community's efforts with regards to new CS content

    Added Danese's Video to the main thread

    Added @FierceDougal5's YouTube video to the post

    Added @JumpingBean's YouTube video to the post
    Reformatted the Video Section
    Removed the Kit Progression "Stuff." Reason: Denied by Development... and also this post is bordering on 100,000 characters...
    Note: Kit Progression information is still present in Livicus's google document, linked under Ideas Discussion

    Added @Fusafez's YouTube video to the post

    The ENTIRE CS Community

    Posted May 1, 2020,
    Last edited Jan 29, 2021
  2. good game add back
    Posted May 1, 2020
  3. As a member of the discord and a frequent player of CS MPS's, I can confirm this amazing justification.
    Posted May 1, 2020
  4. Yes please bring this game back, i play on the MPS all the time and it is the best
    Posted May 1, 2020
    Fallen, xOeuf, mcckaay and 13 others like this.
  5. I play on the MPSs when I have a chance, and I don't use discord, so opposers must keep in mind that a good chunk of the people that play Castle Siege on MPS are not on the discord. There are so many players that want Castle Siege back, and it should be brought back.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your post you did not mention Butch. Butch (the new server selection system if one was not aware) allows games to start much more quick, and this will benefit Castle Siege greatly.

    So many players want castle siege back. It really should happen.

    Great post also
    Posted May 1, 2020
    henry_stick, tk427, Witzels and 14 others like this.
  6. Hey,

    Thank you so much for the information pertaining to Butch! I have updated the post with this information and have credited you accordingly! <3

    [Edit: I also updated the thread to include your other point pertaining to the substantial number of players who do not presently have Discord].

    Also, thank you to everyone who has shown their support towards this thread!! As a Castle Siege enthusiast, I was incredibly eager to jump on the opportunity to finally have actual evidence to be able to contribute to the Revive CS discussion!

    I greatly hope that the higher-ups listen to this post and, after two years, we can finally be able to enjoy our beloved game mode once again! <3


    OP OP
    OP OP Posted May 1, 2020,
    Last edited Jun 26, 2020
  7. As an old CS player, I would love to have Castle Siege brought back!!!! Even though the game has been removed for over 2 years now, it’s quite clear that a strong and supportive community is behind it’s revival. If possible, we could even have game mechanics tweaked and limit the players. The MPS reaches 30-40 players average. Also with the new maps, we can see more variety in which team wins! Besides, the only way the game was one-sided was because most of the time, ghouls used shortcuts. A few tweaks to the game could definitely make it a better game than it was before! :D
    Posted May 2, 2020
  8. CS was the first game I really played and got into, and was really sad when it got removed. I think one reason it might have died out is due to the introduction of CA splitting the playerbase (I'm not sure about that one). Many times in lobbies I'll see old players returning asking what happened to CS, and the A51 game was based on CS and was wildly popular.
    Posted May 2, 2020
  9. I totally agree with this. I met so many friends on castle siege and the community based on that game was truly amazing. Also, it is so fun to play and I know numerous people agree with me. I would love to see it make a return to mineplex!
    Posted May 2, 2020
  10. Huge fan of this. As someone that wants to only play CS for stats (would be nice to get 1k wins in this), I'd love to see its return for achievements and fun in general. I can assure you that there are quite a few level 100s even that would start playing it for win roles in the level 100 discord, so you know there's going to be a lot more players than you currently get with the MPS. The evidence you bring up is completely valid and should definitely be taken into account, though I think games should start at 30 players rather than 20. Another point you could bring up is that it wouldn't "split the playerbase" as the playerbase already exists for CS, and adding game servers would only take a few away from games that are fine with getting lobbies. Most games can spare some players, with MS, Champs, and some individual arcade servers lacking in players often, if not all the time. I'd love to see the return of Mineplex's first game because I'd both enjoy it and want to grind stats for it.

    Amazing thread!
    Posted May 2, 2020
    Posted May 2, 2020
  12. Many threads gave the same reasons that you somewhat debunked in your thread, and after reading this thread I am somewhat neutral about adding castle siege back. I understand your points about your community consisting a major portion of castle siege players, but adding castle siege back to Mineplex relies on the common average player to decide whether castle siege would be a fun game to play again or not. I completely understand that your castle siege community is able to get an active game every day at a specific time, but that only applies to one portion of the community that mostly enjoys castle siege. You would have to include the portion of the community that didn't enjoy the game, and actually thought that CS should be removed in the first place. I do understand your points though, which is why I am neutral with this suggestion you made of adding castle siege back. I just think that a lot of games with large cap players will be really difficult to get, and your argument made in the thread can be easily said for bridges. Bridges has a literals competitive league and MPS communities playing it often. However, public bridges games can take a while to get on sometimes, depending on the time. In addition, Champions domination can be the same thing as well. There are many lobbies in an MPS that have active games of domination, but that doesn't explain that the public lobbies are sometimes taking such a long time to get filled, even when the game starts around 10 people.That's why I am saying adding back Castle Siege won't guarantee the same effect that you're getting in an MPS, especially if the hard cap is much larger than a lot of the games on Mineplex. Just like UHC though, it'd be interesting to decrease the max cap of a lobby if you would want to prevent more lag issues, and such would make queue times much faster than usual. I personally feel like castle siege might have a hype build up, but gain the same support that UHC had towards the end due to the max cap of players per lobby. Everyone has their opinion on whether the gamemode is fun, just like how people say whether Champions or clans is fun to play, or even games like Master builders/speed builders.
    Wow, whoever said Dom wasn't unbalanced haha, I am part of the Dom community and majority say it's unbalanced. People who really make this argument lack judgement on why a majority of games were removed, because Mineplex has a GI team and community insights discord to hear feedback from community members about balance patches. If CS was removed due to balancing issues, that would basically say that Mineplex didn't care about balancing a game, and decided to remove it than talk to the community about it, which is definitely false lol. There might have been different exceptions with games like Type Wars, but most of the games we mention are the core games of Mineplex. Such recent updates were pushed towards balancing games due to how unbalanced some of the game-modes were, and even if one game was removed due to balance issues, majority of the games were removed for more important reasons.

    Anyways, I am not completely against your idea of adding back Castle Siege, and it would be interesting to bring this gamemode back. I completely understand your points given in your thread, which is why I'd be interested to see Castle Siege coming back, but I doubt the Leadership team would consider such a revert like that.
    Posted May 2, 2020,
    Last edited May 2, 2020
  13. I would love to see castle siege make a comeback. It would also be great if we could work toward achievments! +1 for me.
    Also, thank you to everyone working to host the castle siege Mps, I love playing, you guys are awesome.
    Posted May 2, 2020
  14. I completely agree they should bring it back!
    Posted May 2, 2020,
    Last edited Jun 5, 2020
  15. I would personally love for Castle Siege to be added back to its own stand alone game, saying this was also one of Mineplexs first games, it never seemed right to just put it aside. Id really play this more often if it was to be added back. Mega +1
    Posted May 2, 2020
  16. I hope this game will return back
    Posted May 2, 2020
  17. I play this MPS almost everyday and it routinely gets over 30 players at a time. Mineplex should really think about bringing back castle siege.
    Posted May 2, 2020
  18. I agree that Mineplex should bring back Castle Siege. This suggestion has been popping up a ton, but I believe it keeps getting denied for the reasons that you counter argued. I think you gave a good explanation on why Mineplex should bring back Castle Siege. I also think that Castle Siege is fun. +1 from me!
    Posted May 2, 2020
  19. I really want this to come back. I was a castle siege main back before it got removed, but I pretty much stopped playing Mineplex after it got removed because my favorite game was gone. I'm also super sad that I'll never be able to earn the two achievement kits if it just stays in MPS, because I didn't get a few achievements.
    Posted May 3, 2020
  20. Please bring back my childhood game
    Posted May 3, 2020
    eToast_, JumpingBean, Witzels and 9 others like this.

Share This Page