• 431 Players on Java
  • us.mineplex.com
  • 5725 Players Online
  • 5294 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

[ReviveCS] Do NOT Re-Remove CS

Discussion in 'New Game Discussion' started by Danese, Jan 1, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. EDIT [01.04.21]

    Final reply to this thread for record-keeping:


    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.



    I got a request to post this in its own thread to allow for discussion specifically related to this thread reply:

    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)

    [Edit: 01.01.21]
    Definition of "peak count"
    The number of players playing a game during a typical Mineplex high-traffic period (usually around 3 pm EST, though this is speculative at best as it is derived from eye-witness accounts).

    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?


    View the reply via the link below:
    Posted Jan 1, 2021,
    Last edited Jan 4, 2021
  2. Dan, you're using your rocket degree very well!!! making these fancy graphs :o

    all jokes aside, +1 keep cs! <3
    Posted Jan 1, 2021
  3. yes please keep it!
    Posted Jan 1, 2021
    bluetiebacca and Danese like this.
  4. There's a ton of maps that are unbalanced. It would be much better to take it down, revamp maps/balance stuff, then add it back for a more enjoyable player experience.
    Posted Jan 1, 2021
  5. I disagree.

    The game is steadily losing players, and attributing solely to New Years is entirely speculative. It could also very well be the case that players have had enough of CS (whether that be a matter of them completing the achievements, or just being fed up with the constant win farming that exists in virtually every lobby).

    Maybe it could succeed as a permanent game, but personally, I have doubts. It is trending towards there only being a single lobby at a time, which would only exacerbate the existing win farming/stat dodging issues which so far I have heard no solutions for.

    Even setting balance issues aside, this game would still likely die out if it were given permanence. Look at UHC - which is by no means a niche game, and has far broader appeal - it is dead for huge chunks of the day, and it even has the server-wide announcement.

    Let's not also forget that CS died in 2018, when the overall server player count was MUCH higher than it is now. People are attracted to limited time events, but to think that this game would survive now when it couldn't in 2018 is highly questionable.

    Don't get me wrong, I understand you're passionate about this game, but giving it permanence probably isn't the best solution. The server just doesn't have the playerbase for it, and CS also needs a lot of balancing issues worked out on top of that. I'd rather see it as a Christmas event. In that sort of context, I don't think it would ever really die off and could be a refreshing thing to play once a year.
    Posted Jan 1, 2021
  6. This is also speculative. The game is currently up with 126 players, whiiiich requires me to redo the current graph (since the minimum peak has now changed)


    Raw Graph [Updated]

    Annotated Graph [Updated]

    We can do this much more efficiently if the game were to stay.
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Jan 1, 2021,
    Last edited Jan 1, 2021
    EpicEnderDragon1 likes this.
  7. Hello!
    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.
    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 appricate your enthusiasm to bring back the game long term, however I disagree.
    Warm Regards, hunrud
    Posted Jan 1, 2021,
    Last edited Jan 2, 2021
    Jarif and sprainkle like this.
  8. Allow me to redirect you to the now 7-month-old #ReviveCS thread where we have refuted this claim consistently over the past 7 months:


    This isn't out of the blue. This is 7 months in the making. We are still here after our governments have reopened businesses and schools, despite people claiming otherwise. We will be here long after this season has ended.
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Jan 1, 2021
    Fusafez, EpicEnderDragon1 and hunrud like this.
  9. Correct, however the player statistics for the server as a whole do not support what you are trying to claim. The server-wide player count as been roughly the same since Christmas, generally peaking between 2700 and 2900. Only real exception was Christmas day itself, but after that, it has been fairly consistent. https://imgur.com/a/90y8ZvK

    And yet, the player counts for CS have decreased drastically. As you point out, it was getting 200+ initially, but can barely even peak to half of that now. (As a side note: it is also somewhat misleading to only include the peaks. An average would be better, though that would understandably be difficult to gather).

    I don't think the game would immediately die out if it were given permanance (since there clearly is a fanbase for the game), but I do think we are seeing a trend of a decreasing interest in the game, when you consider the the server as a whole has not been seeing the swaying player count that CS has.
    Posted Jan 1, 2021
    Fusafez and mab8400 like this.
  10. "As you point out, it was getting 200+ initially,"
    No I point out that this was an outlier and occurred exactly once (as soon as the game was released).

    "but can barely even peak to half of that now."
    100 players playing a game mode is bad?
    Damn. Guess it's time to remove Master Builders.

    "An average would be better, though that would understandably be difficult to gather"

    Graphically represented, here are the average player maximums over the course of the past week:
    You'll notice just how much of the data is above this line...

    You'll also notice how the data recorded from the updated message is already past that. I've defined "peak count" in the thread as well, to avoid miscommunication.

    Thanks for the chart, actually. This further supports my analysis of the player counts over the 31st and today:
    I am assuming that the blue line is representing player traffic... I have no idea what the gray line is depicting.

    Though, to be frank, I wouldn't actually include this officially in my argument one way or another. This graph tells me literally nothing about what it's actually depicting. No labels, no title, no description, no units of reference. Frankly, this could be showing the average moth count on a bedside lantern for all I know.
    (I'd also appreciate a source if you don't mind)
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Jan 1, 2021,
    Last edited Jan 1, 2021
    EpicEnderDragon1 likes this.
  11. Keep it
    Posted Jan 1, 2021
  12. Master Builders requires much less players. 65 players fills more than 5 lobbies, but would barely fill a single lobby of CS. If CS could do similar (getting 300+) players, then I would 100% be supporting permanence of the game. But we are not seeing that here.

    That is an average of the peaks, not averages - which are very different. What I mean, is an actual average throughout each day. For example, although CS may have reached 126 players today, there were many points when it was much lower. In fact, I saw it hovering around the 70-90 range for a good chunk of the day. This is why averages matter. Sure, it may peak at a certain point of the day, but if it's dead the rest of the time, it makes it much harder to justify keeping the game long term.

    That's what happened with CS in 2018 - there were times when it peaked and got players, but was essentially dead the rest of the day.
    Posted Jan 1, 2021
  13. I'd still like information on that graph that you provided...

    Anyways, It's not dead the rest of the time. And if hypothetical possibilities are the only thing you're arguing... Good. That's good. Making predictions on current data is what I'm doing, to begin with.

    Bringing back the game over the course of the next month will most certainly settle this argument one way or another.

    Baby steps, people. Baby steps.
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Jan 1, 2021
    Fusafez and EpicEnderDragon1 like this.
  14. Yes. Please keep CS there. I was really hyped up while playing it back in 2016, and so many players were there.
    Posted Jan 1, 2021
  15. Yes, they definitely need to keep CS! These past few days have been the most fun I've had on mineplex for a very very long time. The game has some balancing issues, but I believe it won't die out anytime soon. If they aren't keeping it, the least they could do is make it periodic, have it available every four or five weeks. I'll certainly be extremely disappointed if they only make it a limited-time holiday game.
    Posted Jan 1, 2021
    EpicEnderDragon1 and Danese like this.
  16. This game beat CC by a lot and also got more players than most of the games on the server. The only times where the game actually lacked players is in the middle of the night when many of the games on the server also lack players as well.
    Posted Jan 1, 2021
    Danese likes this.
  17. Not to take away from your overall argument because I do like CS as a game but whenever a game is added or brought back, of course it will be really popular. But what are the longevity of these numbers? As is with anything, the appeal will wear off and there will be less players than when it was first brought back.

    Yes there's many players now but it doesn't mean at all that they will continue to play CS.
    Posted Jan 1, 2021
  18. Sorry to sound rude, but what would be difference compared to some other games on the server, they rarely get players if any, example, some of the arcade games, ctf rarely sometimes, the com might start one though, uhc limited time, every 1 hour I believe. Anyways back to cs, Having 80+ players in a game is really good for mineplex, considering that the player count might have dropped during the years, not only because of castle siege but other changes to the server that people might not like the idea about. If castle siege was added back permanently hopefully, it possibly might bring the player count up a little!
    Posted Jan 2, 2021
    Fusafez and Danese like this.
  19. Couldn't agree with you more on this one. People are naturally going to want to play the newest/latest thing, especially when it's advertised as a limited-time event. But that burst of players is only going to last so long. Once the next 'new thing' comes around (whether that be a new game, or just an update to an existing one) - then those players are going to flock to that.

    And as far as CS is concerned - we actually have an example of this happening in the past. Back when the last major CS update was released (in August 2017 IIRC), there was a big boost to its player count. I remember seeing upwards of 300 people playing the game back then. But that too only lasted so long, and the player count eventually dropped back down to what it was prior to the update. If player boosts truly stuck, then CS likely wouldn't have even been removed in the first place.

    So I think these charts paint a somewhat optimistic view of its popularity in the long-term.

    About the only way I could see CS being successful as a permanent game, would be if the server population explodes. I think that's the biggest obstacle right now. 150 players represents about 5% of the concurrent playerbase, which is quite a lot for something like CS. If Mineplex could even get there base back up to something like 5k, it would be a lot easier to foresee a large player game like CS succeeding.
    Posted Jan 2, 2021
  20. Perfectly said; the game itself is a good fit for Mineplex and I would see it as a better replacement for UHC which is fundamentally a broken game because of raying; and the already lacking player count. However, there will need to be an extreme amount of considerations to make in terms of balancing the game in which the re-release hopefully gave enough people the understanding as to why the game currently isn't balanced. The main reasoning for the imbalance is almost purely due to the way that the entire lobby sets into teams. The vast majority of the games I've played are extremely one-sided and uncompetitive. It's become another game where half the lobby (on the lesser-sided team) leaves the rest of their team stranded and provides a guaranteed win for the other. Most of the chat consists of "have the defenders ever won?" "how can we win if half our team leaves??" "is this a defender/undead lobby?" or something along the lines of that. Not at one point would I say team randomization is something I would want; but in this case (and many others) it may be a necessity and the only possible solution to make the game competitive; in order to keep new players to sustain the player base. Either that or some sort of way to make sure that there are enough new and experienced players on the same team so that it isn't a blowout every time, and new players won't instantly quit because the game isn't fun. In games where I've lost but the game was close; teamwork was hugely involved and in the end was a much more rewarding experience. It's again more about the actual gameplay itself rather than the winning that matters; at least from my perspective. Yet that doesn't mean winning isn't part of the fun. Everyone wants to win-
    Posted Jan 2, 2021,
    Last edited Jan 2, 2021
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page