Well, I don't care. As long as you skewed the meaning of my posts because you didn't read and understand them I simply continued to reply and correct you. If people find 7 vs 39 players bs, I don't mind, going to let you know there is a difference anyway.

About lying. I didn't say I lied but I don't mind if anyone accuses me of it. You on the other hand started the rumor about the game likely turning more expensive at launch, just 2-3 weeks before early access ends everyone should take the occasion and save some money. bs, right, you never did such thing? Turned out the other way around, an unexpected 4 Eur price drop. So you deny that as well? You think people don't mind being f*ked over?
I'd even consider empty promises such as a post launch marketing campaign as lying. This leads me to find you way less trustworthy than said source. I won't prove you wrong since I can't. And I don't care to do so. You know your facts, you surely can count any press/yt requests on the fingers on one hand, or rather 1-2 fingers. So you surely remember any such events and the truth behind it. Do with it what you want.

Just gonna lmao if this goes on on the official game forum. No such thing as bad advertising. lol, idk on that one

UT3VegasKill wrote:You on the other hand started the rumor about the game likely turning more expensive at launch, just 2-3 weeks before early access ends everyone should take the occasion and save some money. [...] So you deny that as well? You think people don't mind being f*ked over?

Will this ever stop? 2-3 weeks before Early Access ended, I said that the game is becoming more expensive? Where did I (or anyone else of the team) say this? Or are the sources again "none of my business"?

In the Early Access FAQ (that we filled out in Sep. 2014) we said that the game will likely become more expensive at launch. Since summer 2014 a lot of things happened in the market that made us adjust the price point by ~4 EUR. But that is a different thing from the BS you're accusing me of.

I'm sorry, but I really have enough of this BS and I don't have the time to reply to all that crap. Either bring forth a proof of your accusations or prepare for a rest from this board.

I think the game was written by aliens. That's only the rumor that's going around.

The bottom line is, UT3 is being a bit of a retard, and so is Sharkster. Yes, UT3 doesn't give sources, but arguing over petty things like the difference between 7-30 players really means nothing because...

ITS 30 FUCKING PLAYERS!

I love the devs, the community, and the game. However, TOXIKK seems to have been a complete flop for some reason. There is no point arguing over things like playercount because, hell, it could be 100 for all I care, the game is still as empty as a David Cameron fan club. As a community we need to stop whining about the size of the game because it isn't going to change anytime soon, and instead think of solutions. The problem is player retention, you can CLEARLY see this on steamcharts, people buy the game, and leave (so giving the game to a youtuber isn't going to magically fix the playerbase like everyone thinks it will). Why is this? There also seems to be problems with the servers (which do still exist fyi) and ontop of that the free to play edition seems to cause alot of confusion. Progression is locked off for singleplayers and acheivement hunters and some things (like dodge jumping uphill) still need to be fixed. These are all issues that need to be tackled.

I might sound harsh but I'm just trying to help.

Toxikk is not "a flop". Neither commercially nore relevance wise: As said before it has almost .5 million installations and around 1k unique players per day. These numbers aren't Call of Duty, but still waaaaay above the average indie title. If you say games with such figures are a flop, 90% of all games on Steam are "flops".

However, you're right... I'm a bit of a retard and yea, player retention IS an issue. We realized the latter early on and added the whole MXP stuff and unlockable things (achievements etc. are standard anyway). But it didn't really help a lot. One point is that Arena FPS matches are usually quite short. So, players don't "stack up" over the day (or even over hours). You can have 300 unique players in one hour, if everyone only stays for 10 minutes, You'll have CCUs under 100. It's not really easy to come up with a solution...

You say "there are server problems"? What do you mean by that? And why should the free edition cause confusion? It helps people to get into the game without a paywall. Progression is locked off for Bootcamp (not for Contracts) to motivate people to play on the servers. Not sure about the "dodge jumping uphill" thing, but do you really think that this might be a key for player retention?

Gecko wrote:I might sound harsh but I'm just trying to help.

You don't sound harsh. Your constructive approach shines through your personal insults.

Sharkster [KK] wrote:Toxikk is not "a flop". Neither commercially nore relevance wise: As said before it has almost .5 million installations and around 1k unique players per day. These numbers aren't Call of Duty, but still waaaaay above the average indie title. If you say games with such figures are a flop, 90% of all games on Steam are "flops".

Toxikk did very well on the sales front, but on launch Toxikk was a bit of a (saw someone use this phrase to define Dreadnought and I liked it) "a gaming stillbirth"

Sharkster [KK] wrote:However, you're right... I'm a bit of a retard and yea, player retention IS an issue. We realized the latter early on and added the whole MXP stuff and unlockable things (achievements etc. are standard anyway). But it didn't really help a lot.

I think this comes down to the gaming community in general tbh, people only grind for things that give them a clear boost above players, and this doesn't really suit Toxikk so I really don't know how to fix this.

Sharkster [KK] wrote: One point is that Arena FPS matches are usually quite short. So, players don't "stack up" over the day (or even over hours). You can have 300 unique players in one hour, if everyone only stays for 10 minutes, You'll have CCUs under 100. It's not really easy to come up with a solution...

I disagree, Toxikk does actually have a quite good match-to-match feel and most people would stay for 30 minutes to a few hours if the community was active, but people willing to play against such a small and skilled playerbase are extremely rare. You get the whole `small game pyramid thing` where new players get pubstomped into oblivion where only the top 1% remain- until they find something better to do.

Sharkster [KK] wrote:You say "there are server problems"? What do you mean by that?

I don't know if its just me but I get pretty bad desync on the official servers, teleporting backwards and such. I've also seen falcon shots go through people and not take any damage etc. The servers are nowhere as bad as they first were but some problems still exist (dedicated servers also fix this somewhat)

Sharkster [KK] wrote:And why should the free edition cause confusion? It helps people to get into the game without a paywall.

This is more on the marketing front, the free edition is a great idea, but I know some people that got confused over it (thinking the game must have microtransactions etc) I mean, its pretty clear to me what it is but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I guess people don't look into game descriptions nowadays and just buy from screenshots and trailers haha

Sharkster [KK] wrote:Progression is locked off for Bootcamp (not for Contracts) to motivate people to play on the servers.

Yes, but this doesn't work when the servers are populated with 5 people, all of which can kill you in the blink of an eye. I've said it before and I'll say it again, adding xp for bootcamp (if bots are above a certain difficulty and without mods etc.) would encourage achievement hunters to play the game. BTW- Contracts xp is a nice touch but no one wants to grind the same map with the same amount of bots on the same difficulty to level up.

Sharkster [KK] wrote:Not sure about the "dodge jumping uphill" thing, but do you really think that this might be a key for player retention?

Well, this was more of an example, but things like this can effect older arena shooter players `feel` for the game? Another example would be not having a beam weapon etc. I'm not an old arena shooter pro so I really can't give much advice in this field

Sharkster [KK] wrote:

Gecko wrote:I might sound harsh but I'm just trying to help.

You don't sound harsh. Your constructive approach shines through your personal insults.

I need to remember to not write things on forums when I'm tired and angry (nothing to do with Toxikk), sorry about the insults lol.

Yea, the "small pyramid" problem is definitely true, which is why we have the SC protection (because, basically ALL old-school AFPS guys outgrow SC 07 in their first couple of matches).

We really, really put a lot of brain into the whole retention thing and the problem of new players getting squashed by veterans. But, as with so many modern problems, there is no (or no easy) solution to it.

Back in the days, when you only had 10 games that everybody played, you HAD TO learn & become good at your FPS... because if not... it meant "No FPS for you!". Today, you can choose between bazillion of titles and if one game appears to hard to learn, you simply move on to the next dozen of titles.

And you can't blame people for that. It's just... the way things are.

It is indeed a sad world we live in haha

maybe we should contact those russian hackers and get them to take down every other fps game on steam?