• 1612 Players on Java
  • us.mineplex.com
  • 8965 Players Online
  • 7353 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!

    293 vote(s)
  2. Maybe...

    30 vote(s)
  3. No.

    32 vote(s)
  1. hello i assume mineplex had good reason to remove this game. Mineplex is an amazing server who only remove games that did not work on their Java server. I am positive that the owners would make right decision on what games the server wants to have to play.
    Posted Jan 13, 2021
  2. Thank you Ned for your opinion on the matter. Unfortunately, your main account is permanently banned on Mineplex, making your opinion invalid.
    Posted Jan 17, 2021
    rmotheram, Fusafez, Danese and 3 others like this.
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Jan 24, 2021
  4. Here is this....
    My story about how I joined the ReviveCS community and my thoughts on the game and it's position on the network as of now

    Posted Jan 26, 2021

  5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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

    The ENTIRE CS Community

    too long, just too long
    Posted Jan 26, 2021
    Jtj likes this.
  6. I feel like this is a perfect opportunity to bring back this gamemode and revamp it. Maybe this could be the next big thing!
    Posted Jan 26, 2021
  7. @JumpingBean's Story of CS:


    The video is also added to the Original Post! <3
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Jan 28, 2021,
    Last edited Jan 28, 2021
    Jtj, miraclebuilder19 and Fusafez like this.
  8. Heyo!

    Following the lead of Dan and others, I made my very own video! You can watch it here:

    Posted Jan 29, 2021
  9. Nice video! Very well done

    Posted Jan 29, 2021
    EpicEnderDragon1, Danese and Fusafez like this.
  10. OP OP
    OP OP Posted Jan 29, 2021
  11. Despite how much love everyone on this thread has for CS, there are a couple negative indicators that need to be addressed.

    First off, this is the graph of player counts @Danese so kindly provided. I'm going to assume there's no bias here, since based off my experiences, I don't think Danese would do anything close to that.

    Look at the graph.
    Look at it.

    It peaks slightly every couple days, probably due to the factors Danese listed in his original post, but regardless, it's a pretty damning graph for the CS cause; it's a straight line down!

    You can't reasonably believe that "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", because simply.. they did flat out drop.

    I'm sorry, but the evidence and your beliefs are

    I'd also like to touch on @hommes points, which were dismissed out of hand:

    At the end of the day, Mineplex is a for-profit organisation. Everything they do comes from a desire to earn money.

    That's why Mineplex hires developers - Mineplex earn more money from their updates than they lose from the developers' salaries.

    That's why Mineplex brought back CS for Christmas - more players would come to play, so more players would buy ranks and stay.

    That's why Mineplex removed CS after ten days - there weren't enough players to cover up the costs of the game servers.

    And sadly, that's why I can't see Mineplex adding it permanently - the CS community is yet to prove that it'll be profitable to re-introduce the game, and your first proper attempt to do so is the graph above. Not exactly a stunning display of the potential the game has.

    This has been a pretty negative post, but it's able to show your community what to do next - stop reshuffling your power system, and prove CS can offer Mineplex a permanent source of income and exposure.

    Good luck, from Mr. Fish and me.

    ¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º> gooood luuck

    EDIT: As Danese pointed out, I forgot to include his post with all the original data. It can be found here.
    Posted Jan 30, 2021,
    Last edited Jan 31, 2021
  12. Well, this should be fun!

    The truth is that the graph above is one of the graphs generated back in December/Early January. For sake of properly citing all of the data I provided, here is the link to the thread I posted:

    You can read why I argued (and am still arguing) that the trend isn't an accurate representation on the game's longevity.

    But that's not why I'm posting this... Actually it's because of the two blatantly wrong statements in the quotes above:

    Quote 1: That's why Mineplex brought back CS for Christmas - more players would come to play, so more players would buy ranks and stay.

    Quote 2: That's why Mineplex removed CS after ten days - there weren't enough players to cover up the costs of the game servers.

    God damn I sure love do love shooting down hilariously wrong statements like these!

    "That's why Mineplex brought back CS for Christmas - more players would come to play, so more players would buy ranks and stay."

    No it's not. Sam worked on the game and added it to the like Network for the Christmas advent on his own accord. How do I know this? Because I- and our community's Head Staff team- talked to Sam. Really cool guy, actually! We had a great time working with him and we're super grateful that he took the time out of his busy schedule to do something so nice for us all!

    "That's why Mineplex removed CS after ten days - there weren't enough players to cover up the costs of the game servers."

    The re-removal of the game had literally nothing to do with costs for game servers in any regards. Sam was very straight forward about this as well. The game was planned on being removed after the holiday season. Furthermore, Sam explicitly said that he could not confirm nor deny any possible future for the game because he simply didn't know what that future holds... However, just as I started this paragraph saying, the game's re-removal was planned even before the game was reimplemented onto the Network as a holiday event, and its re-removal had absolutely nothing to do with revenue or server costs.

    For future reference, please be sure to confirm that the information you post is factually correct.

    Oh, and because I feel that it's worth re-mentioning, I'm going to respond to this quote:
    You can't reasonably believe that "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", because simply.. they did flat out drop.

    "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."


    Regarding there not being enough time to definitely state one way or the other how well the game would do, I think the following graph reinforces that idea:

    It's extremely easy to support an argument with a drastically simplified graph, especially when the graph was designed to depict such a broadened viewpoint... However, it's far more important to actually read the data provided! The high points on this graph really make me want to gather more data to see where exactly the daily maximums of players in-game ends up going, especially when the lowest maximum number of players is over 90 (January 3rd).

    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Jan 31, 2021
  13. My bad, I've linked that post at the end of my previous one. To everyone who's reading this, you're encouraged to check that post too, and make up your own minds.

    Undoubtedly he's a nice guy, but I'm not sure how that proves me wrong.
    If Mineplex had a reason for adding CS other than for profit (via higher player counts etc), I'd honestly love to hear it, but it feels like I'm missing something here.

    And I can't debate this point until you explain why you think I'm wrong, and I very well could be, but I just don't know why you think I'm so wrong here.

    Yep, the game was removed because it was a limited event, and that was clear from the start.

    I was intending to refer to CS' original removal, and the 'after ten days' presumably appeared due to a simple mistake. Apologies.

    I dislike this argument, because it contributes nothing to the discussion.

    It's absolutely correct to say we don't know what will happen next, but you can always make that argument whenever anything happens. Because it's always true. We can't see the future. That will never change. No matter how much evidence we compile, you can always say that it could change tomorrow.

    All we can do is predict what will happen next, and I think the reason you're not doing that is because it really damages your stance. Let me show why:

    I predict that CS will continue to flare up at certain times each day. More specifically, when it's in the evening in the USA.

    But, based on the graph of average player counts that you provided, there is absolutely a reason to believe the averages will keep falling. Simply put, we have never seen a significant increase in average player counts, and to say that could happen now is, although not disprovable, also not based in any evidence we have.

    Could the player count stabilise? Yes. Is it likely to? If you look at the graph, you'd say no.

    Do we know for certain if the player count will drop? No. We can't see the future. Is it likely to? Based off the graph, yes it is.

    If there are flaws in my argument I'd love to hear them, but as far as I can tell, your main points are that Sam is nice and we can't see the future. I agree with both, but I can't see how that makes me wrong and you right.

    In complete sincerity, I hope you expand your points. I know there's more you're thinking of, and I eagerly await to hear it.

    Good luck, from Señora Spideridoo and me.
    ///\oo/\\\ click click good luckk
    Posted Jan 31, 2021
  14. Yes you are. Our Head Staff team and I spoke with Sam directly leading up to the game's reimplementation. Actually, we were privileged to help test the game before its release to make sure everything was working correctly. I know the reason that the game was brought back temporarily because Sam told us why the game was being brought back temporarily. You can assume whatever you want about the "Higher up's decision to bring the game back," but it's not true. Sorry, but it's not. Production had absolutely nothing to do with the game being brought back. The game was brought back entirely because Sam decided to bring it back. This isn't an assumption. This is directly from Sam himself.

    The data was recorded for only 10 days and it was following a period of time where it's expected that the overall Network would be seeing an abnormal player increase, followed by a gradual decrease. The reason this isn't a fair assessment is that the game was only given 10 days to "prove itself," and wasn't given enough time to show how well it might perform under normal conditions (after the holiday season, when the Network is filled with players who also have school, work, etc., that they need to get done).

    I explain my reasoning in the thread linked, so I really don't want to continue to re-repeat myself on this argument. But the above basically summarizes my points.

    I genuinely do not care how the data supports or negates my arguments. I only want there to be a fair "trial" period wherein we can get an assessment of the game's performance under normal conditions over a large-ish period of time, and the game's implementation as a holiday event surely doesn't do this justice.

    I want to have the data show how well the game will do (or won't do), so long as the amount of time to which the data is recorded is more than 10 days and isn't around a period of time where conditions on the overall Network as a whole are inconsistent with the Network's average player counts and performance.

    To further support my arguments regarding CS's performance and its correlation to Mineplex's player activity, here is a graph showing Mineplex's maximum player count from January 3rd to January 30th.

    Cite: minecraft-mp's site for Mineplex's status (Mineplex listed the link as unapproved despite its credibility .-. )
    Here's the graph I made:
    The site I sourced above only displays the past 28 days, and there isn't anything I can do to change that... Which really sucks. I spent a decent amount of time trying to find a reliable source that shows daily player counts with a domain that goes back an additional 10 days. If you can find me a site that does that and is credible, please link it to me! I need a site that does that. xD

    Regardless, put two and two together and the source I cited shows a continuation in the player averages for CS, but on a Network-wide level.

    My point is that were the game to have been kept for another month or so, we would have been able to see how the game would have done in relation to the overall Network's performance during the player spikes on January 8th, January 15th, and January 16th.

    And this is exactly what I am arguing. It's unfair to draw such significant conclusions on such a limited data set.

    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Jan 31, 2021,
    Last edited Feb 2, 2021
  15. I have a feeling Mineplex may just leave Castle Siege as a holiday event game, but it would be cool if they could have the game released fully.
    Posted Feb 7, 2021
    Fusafez likes this.
  16. Exactly, and it's this precise reason why I don't think CS would stand a chance in the long run. Even under these amazing conditions ('new' game released, limited time event, holiday season, lockdown), the player counted plummeted to 60 on the first day. On the second, it hit 47. That's not a resounding victory.

    I agree, we were given some very limited data but we shouldn't just close our eyes and ignore the findings. There were some very dramatic factors in play during the period CS was re-introduced, so let's imagine how the player count would have fared without them.

    Throughout the year, Mineplex saw a large increase in players due to the pandemic, and anecdotally I'd say the player count increased about 50% - Mineplex could reach 2,000 players at a stretch in my timezone, and during lockdown it could reach 3,000 if someone has a better estimate, please let me know. In other words, a third of the players online would not be there typically. Assume CS has the same ratio, that means CS would have hit 40 players on the first day of its re-introduction. A grim prospect, but still playable.

    Holiday season - I also typically find, in a normal year, the player count can hit 3,000+ around Christmas. So, let's assume another third would not be playing if it was outside holiday season - 27 players on the first day. It's looking worse and worse.

    Now, the last two main factors ('new' game being released, and a limited time event) are the real problem, because we can't really estimate the extent of their effects, and how quickly the hype of a new game and limited event would go away.
    I also know I've probably over-estimated how bad the situation would be normally with the first two factors, so I'm going to underestimate the last two. Simple Fermi estimation - my results can't be 100% accurate, but my overestimations and underestimations will cancel out, so my final results won't be far off the true answer.

    Let's assume that these last factors complete stop affecting the results on the 3rd of January - from here on out, there is zero excitement about the new game. Let's assume these factors are similar enough that we can merge them into one. And let's assume that the numbers I'm about to say will be as overly positive as the 27 I mentioned previously was negative.

    On the 24th of December, the hype around the new game and the pressure to join an event before it disappears are at their peak. Everyone wants to play a couple rounds of the new exciting gamemode. But by the 3rd of January, we've decided both of these factors are irrelevant.

    So if the 24th was at 100% hype, and the 3rd was at 0%, we can tell the effect hype had by simply comparing the average player counts of the 24th of December to the 3rd of January. It halved.
    We have reached the final conclusion that the hype doubled the player count.

    If we get the overly negative 27 we reached, and we multiply it by the overly positive half we just found out, we get 14 players. And that's considering the original 60 players was the lowest the player count ever got on the first day.

    Fourteen players. That's about how many players I see Turf Wars get. And Turf Wars isn't famous for being the most popular game around.

    There are more negative factors I could mention, from how having less players results in even more players leaving, to how the player count undoubtedly reached lower than 60 on the first day, to how I witnessed the MPSs struggle to get 15 players at peak times, that I just haven't included. That's because this post would probably then cause certain people considerable anguish. That's not what I want.

    So here's my final verdict: Stop pretending like everything is fine. It's not. I was a CS staff member for a long old time, and the only times I ever saw talk about change was either literal revolution, or how CS was doing perfectly and I should stop saying otherwise.

    Castle Siege has the potential to become a long-lasting minigame again, but you're going to have to change a lot. Currently, there are simply not enough players to sustain the game, and the suggested changes range from painful to insane (let's make the game shorter because lag only affects the TPS and players and arrows move as fast as normal in a lag spike because TPS doesn't affect them). The staff team's ability to manage anything is dubious and have created an exorbitant amount of bureaucracy. And I've seen objections dismissed out of hand for reasons based on the objector's character.

    If you change, CS can survive. I eagerly await discussions about anything I've said today, and I hope no-one is upset by what I've said. Say hi to Ginger the (tabby) cat for me.

    (=^・ω・^=) he cant see me
    Posted Feb 7, 2021
  17. Yes, the player counts for CS declined over the time it was live, however, most would agree that was a direct result of lobby stomping and other game balance issues that need to be fixed. That being said, those issues cannot be fixed at the moment because CS is not a live game; we can't work directly with the official Mineplex GI team to rectify the things you point out. The community CSGI team meets every other week to discuss game and map changes, but the fact of the matter is, the only way the game changes we discuss would be implemented is if the game is made live again.

    As for the specific game change you called "painful" and "insane," not only is that a topic not yet finalized, but there are also multiple factors that go into the things we consider. I appreciate your trying to point out issues that we need to address, but the truth is, games of CS in lagging lobbies can last up to 10 or 11 minutes due to lag affecting the game timer, and this kills lobbies; we are open to and discussing ways to remedy that.

    Next, you're right that the staff team isn't perfect; no team out there is, but some of our CSGI members have worked on CS balancing for years, and we are constantly doing our best to push out map fixes and new content for the game.

    As for the points you keep bringing up about the holiday season, while some people are more likely to play when they don't have school/work, there are plenty more who travel or spend time with their families over the holidays. They might log on for a game or two before going to their irl obligations, which does affect the player count. Furthermore, massive groups of players were stacking teams and making it rather unenjoyable to play at certain times; because CS was only live for a limited time, people were grinding stats and achievements while they could. I personally could only play a few games a day because of the frustration of lobby stomping; I enjoy balanced, challenging games rather than easy wins or total annihilation. That's not to say that I don't love CS, it's just that the state of the game over the holidays was far from the best. The skill gap between veteran players and newcomers made matches unbalanced, and the sheer team size made it easy to pubstomp.

    The balance updates that the game needs will almost certainly not be implemented if CS remains an MPS only game, which is why we are pushing for it to be re-implemented with dedicated developer time and a CSGI team. Realistically, the only thing the community can do at the moment to actually tweak gameplay is edit maps and draft suggested changes for if the game is brought back. In the meantime, we've been hosting CSCL (Castle Siege Competitive League) and scrimmages to keep our current players engaged, so the staff team's managing ability is far from dubious.

    In conclusion: We cannot make the changes that we know are needed, and that you keep demanding we make, unless CS is made live. As you said, the game has enormous potential, but we community members are not developers; we can keep the community alive and host events for our players, but at the end of the day, the only direct way we can edit gameplay and work on balancing is by editing the maps, not the game itself.
    Posted Feb 7, 2021
    EpicEnderDragon1 and Danese like this.
  18. Gonna reply to this post again. Quick questions for you, Danese. I also want CS back.
    1) Do you think 50% of players simply played for the achievements?
    And 2) Do you think it would be sufficient enough if two lobbies were happening per day concurrently?
    Posted Feb 7, 2021
  19. Hey,

    Regarding question 1, I have no idea what possible number of players were playing solely for CS achievements, to be honest. There are a large number of players out there who do only play new/limited time games for achievements, but I can't visualize any figures regarding what percent of Mineplex players fall into that niche. I know a lot of players on a person basis who were farming wins and such as well as players who were playing just to have fun.

    Regarding question 2, yeah I think that would be sufficient. It's an exceptionally large game mode, which would mean that, were the two lobbies were full, you would have 120 players in CS at a given time.

    First, I'd like to point out these two topics:

    1. Changing the game times is not finalized. As a matter of fact, we're in the process of scrapping that idea all together in favor of a more direct solution. (More on that below)

    2. I genuinely cannot recall any instances where you were giving criticism towards the game, our processes, etc., and members of CSGI, Head Staff, and/or the CS Build Team straight up disregarded your criticism. And by criticism, I mean discussions towards ways to fix an issue, not just talking about how the issue exists.

    If there were instances of such actions, you should have DM'd me (or any member of head staff) about it. And if you have/had actual constructive ideas, you can have message any member of our Head Staff team directly.

    Which reminds me, if anyone has any input regarding literally anything to make the game itself better, do not hesitate to message us. Or, better yet, feel free to post ideas on this thread itself.


    I was rereading your post because I didn't get a chance to read it as thoroughly as I had liked when I wrote this reply originally. So I have stuff to add!!

    What? Who ever said that?

    Anywho, as I wrote originally, our CSGI team is still discussing changes as we speak. Specifically, as we've learned more about how the game's code works, we've generated another solution to the lag issue that fixes it directly.

    Essentially, we're looking to see if it's possible to have the game reference an external API to ensure that any/all gameplay "stuff" is timed and run with reference to the real world time explicitly, rather than the server's TPS. Doing so would- hypothetically- ensure that, even if the game gets an extreme lag spike, if 7 seconds pass irl after you did a ghoul leap, your leap will be recharged despite the server itself falling behind. This goes for everything relating to time. TNT timers, game length, etc.

    I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about here... Though I'm not that involved with staff regulations and player management. I'm our community's content lead, after all. That stated, my above point still stands. If you had/have any ideas or concerns, you're always free to DM me. I still have you in my Discord contacts if you ever want to talk outside of these thread posts.

    First of all, that's a lot of assumptions that aren't easy to definitively state are going to be present one way or another. Still, I'll go with it.

    The biggest problem I have with this analogy is the fact that you assume a strictly linear relation going forward; yet, that's not how player counts work. Not even on a Network-wide basis. The other problem I have is that the analogy takes no consideration into external factors. Forget real-world "stuff" (the pandemic, for instance). The graph I showed above of Mineplex's player count alone is a significant enough external factor to make the idea of linearity inapplicable.

    Regardless, these are all hypothetical scenarios.
    Actually, you know what? I can do you one better. How about a logarithmic analogy.

    I'm going to be as logical as I can, considering more predictable trends with games that already have a decently sized community behind them. I'll also make use of the same start and end points as in the original analogy.

    Here, I made an image. The linear analogy is red, my logarithmic analogy is aqua.


    The factors are as follows:
    - Players grinding for stats get bored and leave
    - Players only present during the holidays also leave (or log on a less statistically predictable basis)
    - Players who actually enjoy the game (whether it be unassociated community members or members of #ReviveCS) continue to play and do not leave as the groups above decide to leave.

    With these factors, it's reasonable to state that players who play the game- even casually- will continue to be present and those who don't care won't. Thus, we can apply a logarithmic line of best fit, which shows (above) that, with these factors in mind, the average player counts will flatten out around ~50 players... which is still better than many games that currently have lobbies on the Network.

    What am I trying to say here?

    It's extremely easy to use the exact same data from the exact same source and analyze it differently using basic mathematical models. And, as a lesson in real-world economics for anyone here, when you see economists arguing about- well- the economy, this is what the argument is about. It starts with current and readily available data which, in turn, is analyzed by experts with different models being derived from different associated factors, which is then crafted into an argument on the effects that these possible factors will have on current economic trends.

    But back to the point. It's just as easy to use the data above to argue that the game will die out in less than a month as it is to argue that the game will continue to have an active player base.

    But how do we actually find out who's right?

    More data.

    More data leads to more predictable trends which leads to a more accurate assessment on the system's performance.

    It's a shame that the game was removed after only ~10 days of collecting data... Now we're forever caught in an endless debate on analyzing the exact same fragments of irregularly collected data over a extremely limited domain, never allowing either party to ever be proven "right."

    But that's about as far as I'm going to push this argument. I feel as though I keep repeating the exact same things in different ways, then you repeat your exact same things in different ways, then I do, then you... And that's not very productive xD

    Anyways, I would love to hear actual suggestions as to how the game can be improved. But do keep in mind:

    (Alex, 2021)

    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Feb 9, 2021,
    Last edited Feb 9, 2021
    Jtj and Fusafez like this.
  20. I agree with your factors @Danese I noticed during the last few days a group would leave and rejoin because they weren't placed on undead, also grinding for wins does get boring after awhile. Another point to bring up, some games like ctf, some of the arcade games rarely get games starting, so I think castle siege may or may not be successful over some of the games with the player count. Important notice, castle siege was a temporary game when it returned, so if it was brought back permanently it might not be as popular.
    Posted Feb 17, 2021

Share This Page