How’s any of this of any relevance to the topic?
.
3 hours ago, xXThunderFlameXx said:
Yeah because its not like we pointed out numerous times that not everyone uses steam, well, feel free to keep trying then.
yeah.
and you believe this is a valid counter argument? like… seriously?
this is what you tell yourself, not to face the facts, that even if its just a slice of the cake, every slice is representative of the whole.
steam is just the only service which has these nice transparent charts.
now if steam would decline in user numbers, it might not be representative; if steam would be only catering a special audience, it might not be representative; unfortunately, neither is the case;
and even IF steam users were just a random minority, which they aren’t. I bet they are even still the majority.
i know even intelligent people get blindsided; I even know, some use their denial and anger to actually fight against “negative reviews” on steam, like this would be some unfair witchhunt against their beloved game (which they dont play, for “other reasons”, as they keep telling themselves). I admire this loyalty and (wasted) energy of course. I even sympathize, or give the benefit of the doubt, that maybe steam users are declining, but other sources still have some little growth; but it won’t help, the steam charts are representative after all, and the argument, not everybody uses steam, is utter and complete nonsense in this debate.
and even if we just say “they are just representative of steam users”, so a growing, world wide number one market, which will possibly even take over the other slices of the cake in the future, the numbers should actually at least stay somewhat stable. in fact, even at too slow growth over years, it should be alarming.
critics aren’t enemies, otherwise, they wouldn’t be writing. your real enemies, besides taking advantage of it, do not care if you fail. critics do. the real enemies are people who are participating in the collective denial, so they do not have to face their own individual dissatisfaction, or even proactively push you to do the wrong things out of selfish reasons. and then there are the people who burn out, and write the really hateful negative reviews at some point, when the narcissist rage sets in.
it is by the way the same argument as
* forum users are not representative of the population
* people from some continent or part of the world are less representative of the population
* “our game is a niche game which is why we dont grow”
or any other attempt to deflect blame for bad efficiency of the current development strategy to outside factors.
1 hour ago, ORCA1911 said:
How’s any of this of any relevance to the topic?
imho it is slightly relevant, as the proposed alliance function would need some active playerbase; besides being proposed many times, it could have done a big difference, when there were enough healthy mediums sized corporations around to actually make it work.
i am still happy if they implement this at some point - but atm. i agree, that it would probably be counter productive, and only benefit a few, and even become the next scapegoat. and i would love to see a really good implementation, instead of one of those self fulfilling prophecies we have witnessed over the years, where good changes were dismissed, because other changes made them unviable; or held back so long, until it made no sense to introduce it. like introducing SCL. Or bringing back squads, but limiting game rules so ridiculously, that playing in squads becomes totally counter intuitive, or spreading information, like squads are truly responsible for the loss of fun in the game, carebearing a generation of pilots, which learn pvp rules after grinding to t5 - while introducing rewards for teamplay came way too late, and now feel like some kind of wait-time punishment.
Imho they should implement it, but hold it back, and concentrate on other things, but keep it in the back pocket, once the userbase has grown back to some healthier level.
1 hour ago, TheStig_DSX said:
I think the developers would agree too as this is an old suggestion and they never approved it.
i do not agree, that it will neccessarily lead to one-sidedness. in fact it would give the tool for many small-to-medium corps to band together, and would indirectly create inner tensions anyway, and more competition, and more corporation identity. With enough population, alliances would trigger other alliances to form - without it however, one alliance might become the one everyone would want to join.
It does depend on what alliances can do, and what they can’t.
Atm. your tag does not count. Even if one big corp rules the game, without any notable competition, it means nothing.
for me personally, those tags are identical to noname players.
I also think, they never really didn’t approve it for any higher or deeper reasons, sorry.
–
So back to ORCAs question of relevance, I do think, a debate which always ends up in these FUD arguments like ridiculing steam charts, and making it clear that people live in denial, has relevance, as they do not even want to accept, that the player numbers shrink, so they can ignore all the constructive talk, that should be made, why or how alliances could or should work.
Overall of course, talking about how alliances could look like, should be independent of the current player situation, true. It is sad enough, one has to bring up steam charts, just to prove an ignored fact.
I do get, why you do not want it to be relevant to the suggestion, as this whole talk jeopardizes a good idea. And it is a good idea.
(at least you got my +1)
–
TLDR? then stop using a forum.
The main and really ONLY point is: so people can arrange groups within those alliances more easily and effectively. Meaning simply a more effective way to group up for matches.
If the game is thinning out that means corps are thinning out and this is a good way to keep them from having to leave their corp that they worked so hard on. It is NOT an alliance as to sharing corp resources or anything else ONLY a shared chat tab for grouping.
Our corp has alliances and we group up all the time. Its not hard to pm people or even group up in discord or other means but it would be more practical to have just one more tab to pick 1 corp and all chat is shared there with that corp.
1 hour ago, g4borg said:
yeah.
and you believe this is a valid counter argument? like… seriously?
Oh well look whos back, good old “I know you better than you do”
Are you trying to say that Steam completely represents the state of the game? The place where anyone can say whatever they want, and have people agree, the place where these CAREFULLY crafted reviews describe the game in the most accurate fashion, and where people like you can enforce this kind of behaviour? No, that is BS.
I for a fact, don’t use steam, as I usually have issues with it, and if a game can be used with the standalone launcher then why not do that instead? Its like wasting extra space just so I keep getting this stupid pop-up everytime I start my computer, yeah, no thanks, I’d rather buy my games for cheaper from other sites too.
20 minutes ago, xXThunderFlameXx said:
Oh well look whos back, good old “I know you better than you do”
Are you trying to say that Steam completely represents the state of the game? The place where anyone can say whatever they want, and have people agree, the place where these CAREFULLY crafted reviews describe the game in the most accurate fashion, and where people like you can enforce this kind of behaviour? No, that is BS.
I for a fact, don’t use steam, as I usually have issues with it, and if a game can be used with the standalone launcher then why not do that instead? Its like wasting extra space just so I keep getting this stupid pop-up everytime I start my computer, yeah, no thanks, I’d rather buy my games for cheaper from other sites too.
Y are u so angry
1 hour ago, g4borg said:
yeah.
and you believe this is a valid counter argument? like… seriously?
this is what you tell yourself, not to face the facts, that even if its just a slice of the cake, every slice is representative of the whole.
steam is just the only service which has these nice transparent charts.
now if steam would decline in user numbers, it might not be representative; if steam would be only catering a special audience, it might not be representative; unfortunately, neither is the case;
and even IF steam users were just a random minority, which they aren’t. I bet they are even still the majority.
i know even intelligent people get blindsided; I even know, some use their denial and anger to actually fight against “negative reviews” on steam, like this would be some unfair witchhunt against their beloved game (which they dont play, for “other reasons”, as they keep telling themselves). I admire this loyalty and (wasted) energy of course. I even sympathize, or give the benefit of the doubt, that maybe steam users are declining, but other sources still have some little growth; but it won’t help, the steam charts are representative after all, and the argument, not everybody uses steam, is utter and complete nonsense in this debate.
and even if we just say “they are just representative of steam users”, so a growing, world wide number one market, which will possibly even take over the other slices of the cake in the future, the numbers should actually at least stay somewhat stable. in fact, even at too slow growth over years, it should be alarming.
critics aren’t enemies, otherwise, they wouldn’t be writing. your real enemies, besides taking advantage of it, do not care if you fail. critics do. the real enemies are people who are participating in the collective denial, so they do not have to face their own individual dissatisfaction, or even proactively push you to do the wrong things out of selfish reasons. and then there are the people who burn out, and write the really hateful negative reviews at some point, when the narcissist rage sets in.
it is by the way the same argument as
* forum users are not representative of the population
* people from some continent or part of the world are less representative of the population
* “our game is a niche game which is why we dont grow”
or any other attempt to deflect blame for bad efficiency of the current development strategy to outside factors.
imho it is slightly relevant, as the proposed alliance function would need some active playerbase; besides being proposed many times, it could have done a big difference, when there were enough healthy mediums sized corporations around to actually make it work.
i am still happy if they implement this at some point - but atm. i agree, that it would probably be counter productive, and only benefit a few, and even become the next scapegoat. and i would love to see a really good implementation, instead of one of those self fulfilling prophecies we have witnessed over the years, where good changes were dismissed, because other changes made them unviable; or held back so long, until it made no sense to introduce it. like introducing SCL. Or bringing back squads, but limiting game rules so ridiculously, that playing in squads becomes totally counter intuitive, or spreading information, like squads are truly responsible for the loss of fun in the game, carebearing a generation of pilots, which learn pvp rules after grinding to t5 - while introducing rewards for teamplay came way too late, and now feel like some kind of wait-time punishment.
Imho they should implement it, but hold it back, and concentrate on other things, but keep it in the back pocket, once the userbase has grown back to some healthier level.
i do not agree, that it will neccessarily lead to one-sidedness. in fact it would give the tool for many small-to-medium corps to band together, and would indirectly create inner tensions anyway, and more competition, and more corporation identity. With enough population, alliances would trigger other alliances to form - without it however, one alliance might become the one everyone would want to join.
It does depend on what alliances can do, and what they can’t.
Atm. your tag does not count. Even if one big corp rules the game, without any notable competition, it means nothing.
for me personally, those tags are identical to noname players.
I also think, they never really didn’t approve it for any higher or deeper reasons, sorry.
–
So back to ORCAs question of relevance, I do think, a debate which always ends up in these FUD arguments like ridiculing steam charts, and making it clear that people live in denial, has relevance, as they do not even want to accept, that the player numbers shrink, so they can ignore all the constructive talk, that should be made, why or how alliances could or should work.
Overall of course, talking about how alliances could look like, should be independent of the current player situation, true. It is sad enough, one has to bring up steam charts, just to prove an ignored fact.
I do get, why you do not want it to be relevant to the suggestion, as this whole talk jeopardizes a good idea. And it is a good idea.
(at least you got my +1)
–
TLDR? then stop using a forum.
Here is the stats for steam cahrts in last 4 months:
| Last 30 Days | 413.4 | +18.0 | +4.56% | 764 |
| May 2017 | 395.4 | -74.4 | -15.83% | 790 |
| April 2017 | 469.8 | +15.2 | +3.34% | 960 |
| March 2017 | 454.6 | -90.1 | -16.54% | 868 |
Look at the average players, you are looking into a difference of ~70 average players a day,
Yet right before the summer started and summer breaks (and it starts earlier for Post-Soviet countries than in US, and i have no idea for EU) there were 22 000 people on a PvP weekly chart (and TaiKin was already released), and ignoring all the people that only PvE and OS.
Last week right before the weekly reset there were almost 9 000 PvP players on a weekly chart, which is the huge drop, and of course Ellidium balance have had some toll on it, but Summer is summer, regardless of the reasons for that chart - correlate it to Steam and you see that the only thing it represents is that almost nobody plays it through Steam.
Look guys, i’m not interested in some charts or how the current state of the game looks like, everyone has their own opinion. Just imagine a future with unicorns and where pvp is fair and if you would like to see the suggestion happen in that future, vote it up, simple as that. ”)
5 minutes ago, ORCA1911 said:
imagine a future
<3
+1
1 hour ago, xXThunderFlameXx said:
Oh well look whos back, good old “I know you better than you do”
Where did I talk about knowing you, exactly? You are not using steam, fine with that, but others do.
I did not attack you personally. I was even friendly to you, when others weren’t. So no reason to be so triggered.
2 hours ago, xXThunderFlameXx said:
and where people like you can enforce this kind of behaviour? No, that is BS.
what? people like me? who thinks who knows whom here. and which kind of behaviour? I don’t get your whole paragraph there to be honest.
1 hour ago, xXThunderFlameXx said:
Are you trying to say that Steam completely represents the state of the game?
no, did i write this? To answer you to this, as far as I understand:
I do not agree with rage reviews, nor with brainless defensive attitudes.
They are just flipsides of the same coin. The one who is praising and fighting for the game blindly, and denying all criticism in religious frenzy is the same person, who writes hate allures once the illusion breaks down. Most people know this, and most negative comments like that won’t be taken seriously.
I am not one of those people, as even if I write a critique, I try to balance it. And, I am also perfectly aware, that my kind of review only reaches a very small percentage of people, and that most people just xxxx on the internet and leave their personality no boundaries.
In fact, most of the time, the worst reviews you can get, is no reviews.
Overall, for a while, steam reviews have recovered in SC.
TLDR: I was criticizing the proactive effort to “disqualify” stupid critique, which is just as pointless as the stupid critique.
1 hour ago, xKostyan said:
Here is the stats for steam cahrts in last 4 months:
the charts you should compare is over multiple years - or did you honestly think, i was trying to make a point with over-the-year fluctuations?
I am perfectly aware that player numbers change over time. You should know me better than that.
if you look, you will see, that compared to previous years, the breakdown in player numbers started even before summer, reaching lows that had not been there for years. So until 2017, actually, the steam charts did not suggest an overall core player drop, but this year, it actually does.
even if the game had little to no growth over years on the charts, it would be actually a bad sign, except if the steam charts of “overall users of steam” has a similar graph. Otherwise, it means, while the steam userbase got bigger, the reach to actual steam users did not go well.
steam overall users did increase over the years, but they do correlate quite a bit with the monthly graph over the year, as they are at 14 mio. concurrent logins in january, and only 11 in april.
also, I hardly believe the majority of the users in this game are not from steam, to be honest.
But even if it would be, it is ridiculous to dismiss the steam charts as inconsequential, simply because it triggers you to hear, that things are not beautiful.
It’s like removing the overall user count in the game back then to hide the crisis, that we dropped below 800 players. Marketing like this is something you should not help, because it is hurting this game overall. That includes a lot of remarks, which constantly show signs of denial, like paranoid remarks about the steam “community”, or rants on live-stream, or overly positive self reflections in the media, which read to most people like insults, and gave most people the feeling, that the devs actually do not care.
As I am aware, that this can’t be true, my motivation is not to talk about doom or cry wolf.
Also, all that it is trying to say, overall in the thread is, that atm. the population would simply need to grow for alliances to make some sense.
It’s not really an attack, just an observation. I personally do want the population to grow, and I would not f* care if they come from origin or uplay or facebook.
Totally besides the point if steam users are here or there. The answer “steam charts are unrepresentative” is a ridiculous excuse, simply because steam is the only available transparent data at our disposal.
2 hours ago, ORCA1911 said:
Just imagine a future with unicorns and where pvp is fair
true, but the frustrating thing is, alliances were already proposed; anyway, you got my upvote.
sry if i had to defend myself here, i am back to look-only-mode.
I made an example of last 4 month to correlate to in-game PvP records while Steam keeps the average of 400 people online we were hitting 22 000 records on a weekly pvp chart, that went from 22 000 to 9 000 while steam chart staied at ~400 average, which is the most relative data we have, to bad nobody tracks it.
Over the years average steam population was growing, peaking through the year of destroyers, despite all the hate towards them and how they were a mistake by all the “credible sources on forums”, and you can track the beginning of decline with the big nerf to destroyers or rather implementation of things that demolished destroyers, but of course that is all subjective, and any trend can be correlated to pretty much plethora of unrelated trends, like election of Trump or Russia going to Syria, some of those are pretty funny though ”)
Yes, there is a decline comparing to the previous year, I never said otherwise, but what I am saying is that using steam as all encapsulating statement is not right. I don’t have any weekly data from last summer to go by and like anybody else go by personal feeling, yet I can definitely say that comparing to the last summer
(a) t5 games in my time zone are on average twice as big (and this has nothing to do with NA population, lat year were RU servers too) and wait time is 10x shorter
(b) every night there are opponents in Federation sectors t3/t4/t5, while for past 2 years there were ZERO, not even bots.
Again, I am not saying everything is great and dandy, just too many arguments are too personal, just like mine.
24 minutes ago, xKostyan said:
I made an example of last 4 month to correlate to in-game PvP records while Steam keeps the average of 400 people online we were hitting 22 000 records on a weekly pvp chart, that went from 22 000 to 9 000 while steam chart staied at ~400 average, which is the most relative data we have, to bad nobody tracks it.
Over the years average steam population was growing, peaking through the year of destroyers, despite all the hate towards them and how they were a mistake by all the “credible sources on forums”, and you can track the beginning of decline with the big nerf to destroyers or rather implementation of things that demolished destroyers, but of course that is all subjective, and any trend can be correlated to pretty much plethora of unrelated trends, like election of Trump or Russia going to Syria, some of those are pretty funny though ”)
Yes, there is a decline comparing to the previous year, I never said otherwise, but what I am saying is that using steam as all encapsulating statement is not right. I don’t have any weekly data from last summer to go by and like anybody else go by personal feeling, yet I can definitely say that comparing to the last summer
(a) t5 games in my time zone are on average twice as big (and this has nothing to do with NA population, lat year were RU servers too) and wait time is 10x shorter
(b) every night there are opponents in Federation sectors t3/t4/t5, while for past 2 years there were ZERO, not even bots.
Again, I am not saying everything is great and dandy, just too many arguments are too personal, just like mine.
Weekly leader board isn’t update weekly  most of the time it is, but not always
1 minute ago, Tillowaty said:
Weekly leader board isn’t update weekly  most of the time it is, but not always
[https://forum.star-conflict.com/index.php?/forum/213-bug-report-section/](< base_url >/index.php?/forum/213-bug-report-section/)
53 minutes ago, xKostyan said:
like election of Trump or Russia going to Syria, some of those are pretty funny though
lol rly?
but yeah, sry, i got triggered aswell reading that ***** again.
53 minutes ago, xKostyan said:
as all encapsulating statement is not right.
yeah i never would do that, but you know, the answer “not everybody uses steam” kinda does submit that message.
i do find it equally useless to come with the steam charts every time ”)
even our forum community can be seen as a microcosm, representing stuff
27 minutes ago, Tillowaty said:
t5 games in my time zone are on average twice as big
t5 pop has increased indeed even in the last active time i had; it kinda shows that we have a really devout endgame population.
also sec con has indeed had a bit of a comeback this year, the new system might have been a good idea.
oh yeah and i just quoted from the wrong msg.
53 minutes ago, xKostyan said:
destroyers
i think the only thing i did not like about destroyers was the vigilant with vacuum cleaning across the map anyway, i did not get either side of that dispute to be honest. we were internally divided on most things internally in corp - we have quite some internal differences in viewpoints.
oh and of course the way missions were designed, and not giving existing players the destro parts new players got, which was imho a major mistake; aswell as the constant squad regulations in that timeframe, that cost us all quite a few players.
6 minutes ago, g4borg said:
27 minutes ago, Tillowaty said:
t5 games in my time zone are on average twice as big
t5 pop has increased indeed even in the last active time i had; it kinda shows that we have a really devout endgame population.
also sec con has indeed had a bit of a comeback this year, the new system might have been a good idea.
oh yeah and i just quoted from the wrong msg.
I didn’t say that, don’t lie.
Also still no 3/4 man squads in T5 
14 minutes ago, Tillowaty said:
I didn’t say that, don’t lie.
Also still no 3/4 man squads in T5 
We can’t even find games in 2 man squads at my time 
Destros were not the only stuff happened during last year. For a lot of time some genius decided squads didn’t belong to the game and confined them to leagues. The combined effect (destros and squads removal) was the lost of more than half of the vets population in favour of more casual players that comes and go. This type of population tend to be way more not-reliable in term of “keep playing the game”. Gg on that.
Destros era was also the beginning of a more aggressive monetizing strategy. That also hurted playerbase a lot.
Destros were just the first exemple of fast monetizing strategy from people that had no skills,people that was total Ace gained some fame by playing non stop those bs ships. The same guys not whort two dimes in a regular ship (oh, where did I already read that? Hum…). The game suffered from bad decisions started by doublin the dlc prices. All that came after that, is only a consequence.
So no, we don’t have enough population to make this proposal whort.
P.s. the destros are bs. Long time op ships made just to let n00bs to spend money. Variety added to e gameplay: 0.
N00bs don’t pay bills, vets do. In a long run… The run is over ”)
what should alliances do btw.
besides being allied
8 minutes ago, g4borg said:
what should alliances do btw.
besides being allied
Not sure how all of the comments were so off topic but this is only asking for another tab that you can assign to share corp chat with another corp or however the devs do
so that for example, BORG and Beast can group up more easily and do missions together. NOT so that we can take over the world. O.o
That’s it. I get in the game and do my daily OS missions and then type in corp chat. “+ for r15 group”… Sometimes I get no takers so it would be great to say the same in beast channel also which makes it even more chance I can get a group going.
Yes, I know there is find group tab but sometimes you get people you just don’t want or speak another language and have to deal with that. With beasts I am ok with them so it works.
Pretty simple concept.
Spoiler
*waiting for someone to post how off topic I was in another thread*
7 minutes ago, g4borg said:
what should alliances do btw.
besides being allied
There is always room to hate on NASA , or like Sponge, on Russians in general.