• 364 Players on Java
  • us.mineplex.com
  • 4456 Players Online
  • 4092 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!

    305 vote(s)
  2. Maybe...

    31 vote(s)
  3. No.

    33 vote(s)
  1. Meh it is my same point that stands. They don't want actual fixes lmao. Just the timer bug fixed, and Paladin fixed since kit levels messed it up. They have no idea, nor understand how to actually fix the game so that it can survive on MP for a long time.
    Posted Dec 29, 2020
  2. As part of CSGI, if you have any ideas about balancing CS, I'd love to hear them. You can PM me on forums or on Discord (which you can find linked on my forums profile). :)
    Posted Dec 29, 2020
  3. Have you tried actually reading it? I know it's a lot, but if you're going to reply to my post at least have the decency to actually read what you're replying to...

    As Alex (fusafez) pointed out, if you have any suggestions or ideas, please feel free to DM myself or any member of the CSGI team. Let me assure you, I- as well as the other members- do know what it is we are talking about.

    And, just because I didn't decide to include more topics of discussion that our team is currently involved in does not mean they do not exist. .-.
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Dec 29, 2020
  4. oh wise burntcopy, please bestow upon me your great knowledge on the mineplex minigame castle siege
    Posted Dec 30, 2020
  5. One must devoutly hail our one true god and ruler Epic Ender Dragon. For this is the only way that thou shall learn how castle siege can be fixed in the future.
    Posted Dec 30, 2020
  6. Why are you wasting your time here?
    Posted Dec 30, 2020
  7. Happy New Year's Everybody!

    So I've noticed a lot of people have been playing CS, many of which are more casual players who haven't played the game before. On top of that, a lot of players have been saying how they're sad that the game is- as of current knowledge- about to be re-removed from the server.



    Additionally, I have been collecting data periodically from the CS NPC, recording the date, time, and player counts in a google sheets document. This data has shown a relatively stable player count over the period that CS has been accessible from the Main Lobby.

    You can Click Here to view this recorded data.

    Note that I am not a robot. There are several unrecorded instances where the player count in CS was at 0 and others when the player count was in the 200's. The instances of 0 players are rumored to have occurred around 3 am MST and lasted for a few hours. Specifically, these instances occur around the times in which other large lobby games "die out" (Bridges, UHC, DOM-based games, a large majority of the mixed arcade lobbies (game-specific or otherwise), etc.). So, in this regard, CS is no different.

    Meanwhile, instances to which the player counts were in the 200's are rumored to have occurred on December 23rd and/or December 24th.

    Anyways, a graphical representation of this data can is available below. This formatted chart includes basic annotations to make viewing different dates more simple.


    Click here to view the image through Imgur if you are having difficulties reading the text.

    Now, allow me to analyze this data for you all. To do so, and to make everyone's lives easier, I have created a copy of this copy of the generated graph containing explicit (and colored) annotation to allow for ease in the explanation of my analysis.


    Again, click here to view the image through Imgur if you are having difficulties reading the text.

    There was an extreme peak on the 24th and (possibly) the 23rd (though I do not have any recorded data for the 23rd and the data I have recorded for the 24th is extremely limited. Again, I'm a human being not a data tracking bot similar to what YouTube algorithms use). This peak, in my records, was 187 players either in the game finder's queue or in lobbies for Castle Siege. This, I recorded, to be on the 24th of December, 2020 at 12:00 pm MST. This is shown in blue (above). This is an outlier within the rest of my data.

    The minimum number of players I had recorded in my data was 47 players either in CS lobbies or in a queue to find one. This occurred on the 26th of December, 2020 at 5:49 AM (MST). This minimum is shown in pink (above). Special thanks to @FierceDougal5 for providing me with data at god-awful hours in the morning for MST individuals.

    I found it interesting that the lowest recorded number of users in my records occurred only 3 days after the game was released onto the Network for the holidays. But I digress.

    In green (above) is an approximate visual representation of the average peaks in player counts between December 24th, 2020, and January 1st, 2021. You'll notice a significant drop off in player counts on December 31st and January 1st. It's almost like players are celebrating the New Year with their families as I write this! Fascinating!

    Yes, this drop is to be expected. 'Tis the New Year and, unlike on Christmas, younger players are spending time in front of TV's watching the New Year begin or engaging in other festivities away from their Minecraft instances. Compare this to Christmas, where users are playing with their brand new gadgets and gizmos, such as gaming equipment and whatnot. This is, of course, from my personal experience over the 18 holidays that I've celebrated with my family, and the 13-or-so that I can actually recall, even if in fragments.

    [EDIT 01.01.21]
    Updated Raw Graph:

    Updated Annotated Graph:
    Update Notes:
    Minimum peak changed from 97 on January 1st, 2021 at 6:00 PM (MST) to 108 players on January 1st, 2021 at 5:15 PM (MST)

    Now that we have the data out of the way, let's discuss what the community gains from keeping the game on the Network.

    1. Should the game be recognized as a "Classics Game," Classics GI will be able to work on the game both in regards to updates and content. Our CSGI team has been "unofficial" by Mineplex's standards; yet, we have ensured that community feedback for the game- both with maps and other content- has been considered and processed. We do, after all, have over 200 map fixes under our belts over the past several map updates, as well as four (count 'em, four) new maps live on the Network.

    Having the game back on the live Network allows our CSGI members to work more within Mineplex's systems themselves as new updates for various content is processed and released.

    2. Keeping the game on the live Network will allow individuals who enjoy the game greatly to still be able to play this game. Many individuals have expressed their enjoyment in the game. And even though pub-stomping is, presently, an issue, releasing that the game is not back for a limited time (but, rather, as a permanent game mode) will help alleviate this. Individuals will not feel the need to "farm wins" since they can gain those wins by playing the game mode casually.

    3. Keeping the game on the live Network will allow our CSGI team to work closely with Mineplex's GI teams, which will allow us to help create new rebalances for the game itself. It is clear, yes, that the game has a handful of issues in terms of balancing. However, shoving the game back into an MPS will only prevent these issues from being fixed.

    The fact is that the data above and these reasons are more than sufficient to warrant keeping the game mode on the live Network perminantly.

    So when the Christmas "stuff" is taken down, how about we just keep the CS NPC and her lobbies running?

    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Jan 1, 2021,
    Last edited Jan 1, 2021
  8. I have to concur, the cs game is really fun, its prob my favorite kinda game on mineplex is cs, those are the best.

    Posted Jan 1, 2021
  9. Honestly I would love to see CS come back as a gamemode. Many of the OG players of Mineplex will remember the gamemode back in it's peace. It's incredibly sad Mineplex has decided to remove game modes because of it's lack of a player base but Id's like to think now that seeing it become so active as it has been as a temporary evidence that bringing the game back would do great for the server.
    Posted Jan 1, 2021
  10. Hypixel=no Mineplex=yes, if cs, now revive it!

    Posted Jan 1, 2021
  11. Congrats @Danese on 20k views on this thread! If castle siege was brought back permanently, the undead win farming might slow down since it was temporary game mode. I agree it should be brought back and hopefully improve!
    Posted Jan 1, 2021
  12. Posted Jan 1, 2021
  13. Hello,

    About a week ago (give or take) I posted a thread regarding why Castle Siege should not be re-removed in the lobby, emphasizing the benefit keeping it on the Live Network would have for the community behind the game and the future of the game as a whole. Obviously, that didn’t happen…

    Regardless, I am here to provide the finalized Data that I have accumulated since December 23rd, and to discuss its meaning as well as go into detail about the associated methodology behind this data, the limitations associated with this methodology, the interpretation of this data, and both sides of its discussion.


    Between December 24th, 2020, and January 3rd, 2021, I (Danese) would, at random, log the player counts displayed by the Castle Siege NPC. There was no “set order” to which I would log the data. Rather, it would be “whenever I had a chance to do so.” Typically, the times to which I would be available to log the data would be anywhere between 12 pm MTS and 12 am MST, with many notable exceptions (as shown under “Data”).

    Using Google Sheets, I would log the time (in military time and in Mountain Standard Time), the number of players “Playing” (as displayed on the NPC), and the date to which I logged these numbers. Additionally, I added an extra column to format the date and time appropriately for when I generated the graph of player counts so that both the date and the time of the data would be visible on the horizontal axis.

    From there, at the start of every subsequent day, I would generate an “average player count” by taking the quotient of the sum of the player counts across the given day and the number of recorded player counts. This produced the mean of each day, which is- per definition- the average.

    These averages were then graphed to provide an easily viewable visual aid of these averages per day.


    To start, you can access all of the raw data, the unedited graphs, and everything I am about to discuss- in full- by accessing the link provided:


    Table 1 (below) depicts the graph of the logged player counts, made easily viewable with the visual edits which device this data into recognizable dates.

    (Click here to view the graph through Imgur)

    Table 2 (below) shows the recorded player counts as well as their associated times and dates of recording.


    (Click here to view the table through Imgur)

    Table 3 (below) depicts the average daily player counts over time based on the data from Table 2.


    (Click here to view the graph through Imgur)

    Data Analysis

    The overall trend of the daily recorded player counts with their respective dates and times (Table 1) shows- though not obviously- an overall negative correlation between daily player counts with relation to time. This trend is made more obvious by examining the average daily player counts over time (Table 3). This implies that, over the course of the 11 day period to which Castle Siege was live on the Network, the average amount of players participating in the game was on a steady decline.

    That stated, there are several variables present within the overall methodology that adds a level of unreliability to this overall data.

    To start, there was no rhyme or rhythm to which the data was logged. The times in which the data was logged on each day were severely inconsistent, as shown in Table 2. December 24th only has two times in which data was logged (0:00 hours and 12:00 hours, MST). December 25th, December 30th, and January 2nd all have between 4 and 6 instances to which data was logged. December 26th, 27th, and 28th, as well as January 1st and 2nd, all have between 9 and 10 instances to which data was logged, making these five days the most reliable in terms of the number of instances to which data was recorded. December 29th and December 31st both have 13 instances to which data was recorded.

    Even though some of these days share a consistent number of instances to which this data was logged with one another, the times at which the data was logged are extremely inconsistent. December 24th has a 12-hour gap between the two instances to which the player counts were recorded. Meanwhile, though I will not go in-depth on the differences in the amount of time to which each instance of data is spaced out between its previous and subsequent logged pieces of data, looking at the table from Table 2 shows even more inconsistencies in the times to which data was logged.

    Some times were logged on the hour. Others were logged on the half-hour. Others were logged on the quarter-hour. And some were logged at an incredibly random time. For instance, one logged player count from December 26th was logged at 5:49 am (MST), while another was logged at 11:44 am (MST). On December 29th, one piece of data was logged at 8:31 pm (MST).

    Additionally, all of the logged data was recorded- with the exception of a handful of instances- between the hours of around 11 am (MST) and 12 am (MST). This means that there is absolutely no data reliably and consistently recorded in the early hours of the morning (between around 1 am MST to around 10 am MST). Recorded player counts at 3 am and 5 am (MST) are recorded on an inconsistent basis. These factors result in a situation where the overall data provided is extremely unreliable at best and downright incorrect at worst.

    Lastly, the number of days to which Castle Siege was live on the Network creates a scenario where there simply is not enough information to determine the longevity of the game itself. Though the average player counts per day, depicted in Table 3, show a steady decline, this trend is simply not over a long enough duration to definitively say whether the game "will last” one way or another. Based on this data alone, there is equally as likely a probability that these averages will level out over the course of a few more weeks as there is that these averages will flat out drop down to below 20 players (the number of players required to start a game).


    The methods to which this research concerning Castle Siege player counts was conducted is deeply flawed and creates a situation where the above data is extremely unreliable. Even if one were to take this research as is, the fact is that this research took place over an insufficient period of time to conclude, one way or the other, whether or not Castle Siege has a sustainable player count. Were the game to stay for two additional weeks, there would be the created opportunity to accurately assess the game’s capability to sufficiently ensure a stable player retention rate.

    More research is required in order to make any definitive statement, one way or the other, whether or not the game would adequately perform on the live Network.


    Edit: 01.04.20

    Though the methodology is flawed, the data itself does depict an idea of what the game's player count was looking like over the course of the past 10 days. Thus, the point remains that the amount of time to which this data was recorded is too short to definitively state- one way or the other- whether Castle Siege is able to sustain a player base over a significant period of time or during a non-event period.

    (Sorry that I did not make that point clear)
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Jan 4, 2021,
    Last edited Jan 4, 2021
  14. Hello!
    Since I see that the post has changed threads, I have decided to move my post over as well. This should help clear up confusion as it points out several key issues. Another reason why I have re-posted it is because I have edited it up including all of the clear reasons why the data may be inflated. These are the reasons are some of the ways in which the data would not hold up over the next 2 weeks. Once again, I understand you want CS back, but I believe that it cannot survive on Java MP long term anymore.

    As much as I like castle siege as a game on the Mineplex Network. I like it as more of a seasonal event than a long running permanent game due to popularity concerns. These popularity concerns mean that the statistics you have shown are caused by inflated data due to the following circumstances.

    Some like myself believe that the player count is up due to the following factors:
    • CS being a limited event for achievement hunters.
    • Christmas break increasing MP Java player count by 1k.
    • Quarantine in some places boosting activity.
    • New game implemented causing popularity to sky rocket.
    • Advent event to win a game of CS raising the game's liveliness.
    • CS being above all games on the compass/NPC in the middle of spawn.
    • CS being advertised on the forums, in game, and on discord.
    • Double XP attracting more players than usual.
    These factors would be more or less terminated if the game were to become a long running NPC. This was seen before when MP updated the game in mid 2018? to only see the game decline months later. Thus, me and others would tend to believe a seasonal event would be far better for this game going forward. I do appreciate your enthusiasm to bring back the game long term, however I disagree.
    Warm Regards, hunrud
    Posted Jan 4, 2021
  15. Interesting idea, but it isn't 2018
    Posted Jan 4, 2021
  16. Correct, but what exactly are you trying to imply?

    Back in 2018, Mineplex had a significantly larger playerbase, so if anything, game revivals would have been more likely to succeed back then.

    I also mostly agree to hunrud's point in that the game should be left as a seasonal thing, though I will also add that I would like to see some re-balancing regardless. When it was out on the public servers, games were super one-sided and it would be a lot more fun if it could be made more competitive.
    Posted Jan 4, 2021
  17. are you sure
    Posted Jan 4, 2021
  18. CS was updated in the summer of 2017 and removed in March of 2018. Completely irrelevant to what I'm about to say, but I thought I would shoot it out there anyway for anyone interested.

    Anywho, I agree that having CS as a seasonal game would be extremely beneficial for the CS community as well as the Network as a whole. One thing that my data did accurately show is that at no point were there not enough players playing the game during the day (in reference to the western time zone) for a lobby to start. Additionally, many players- even ones who have never heard of our movement- openly stated that they wished that the game was never removed. Also, many of these same players were openly disappointed about the re-removal of CS, at times even openly stating that "Mineplex removing their older games is why the server died/is dying."

    Rebalances, both to maps and to the game itself, are being discussed by the CSGI team as I write this... As a matter of fact, as I have been typing this, I have had to switch back and forth between this page and the Discord channels in which we are conducting these types of discussions.

    Additionally, as one final note, Sam's (Moppletop's) announcement in the Mineplex Discord stated the following:
    Text: "Whether or not CS will come back is up for debate, but for now it has been removed."

    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Jan 4, 2021
  19. lol

    Unless they are part of the leadership team who accurately knows what is going on behind the scenes, that speculation can not be taken for fact
    Posted Jan 4, 2021,
    Last edited by a Moderator Jan 4, 2021
    Young_Inventor, sprainkle and hunrud like this.
  20. Dude; You gotta put this on your trainee application
    Posted Jan 4, 2021

Share This Page