Again, claiming that Mount & Blade is "mostly SP" and claiming that EU4/Hoi4/paradox games are "mostly MP" is ridiculous. There are huge amounts of people on Mount & Blade that play multiplayer (see NW, PW, Full Invasion, etc.) which far outpace EU4 lobbies. I don't think you have a good grasp on how many people are actually multiplayer players on Warband, and how few people actually play MP on paradox games. Most are single players on paradox games.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Bannerlord was a grift
- Thread starter Roy1012
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
Good thing I never said that then!
My claim there was that PDS titles don't have very many players (certainly not "a good percentage") playing past 1000 hours. And they can't, not if the average playtime is 190.
Hearts of Iron 4: has 378.54 hours average
Stellaris: has 217.49 hours average
Europa Universals: has 569.57 hours average
Crusader Kings 2: has 246.53 hours average
Hearts of Iron 4 has a 35,261 a day peak player time.
Europa: has 22,111 a day peak player time.
Stellaris: has 9,706 a day peak player time.
Crusader King 2: has 4,076 a day peak player time
the average playtime of Bannerlord is 97 hours with a day peak player time of 18,171.
It said 190 "+"
Do I even have to mention that this holds absolutely no basis for anything.
Bannerlord is a story driven, open world linear campaign, was advertised as a sandbox title; only included a "sandbox" mode half-way through development.
Something to keep in mind is the difference between median and average playtimes. I’m not sure if the stats you guys are bringing up are able to notice this.
This is relevant because Bannerlord only has 41 players with 1k hours. The Paradox games all have over 250 players (some of the lower ones are at 2500). Steamladder only shows the top 250, so it’s likely many more have this kind of hour potential. Bannerlord is weak in this department.
This is relevant because Bannerlord only has 41 players with 1k hours. The Paradox games all have over 250 players (some of the lower ones are at 2500). Steamladder only shows the top 250, so it’s likely many more have this kind of hour potential. Bannerlord is weak in this department.
Exactly
Yes. I argued it is about genre mostly and not effort.
I doubt more work hours in total have flown into factorio rather than a recent RPG title. Witcher 3 even wich is very content rich and has long play hours on average.
Yet you will find a higher portion of people in factorio with four digit play hours than in witcher 3. Why? Because factorio is a sandbox game and Witcher 3 is an RPG which has limited replayability. (Im not claiming it has none of course)
Last edited:
Where are you getting these numbers from? Because SteamSpy indicates something different:
HoI4: Playtime total: 204:52 (average) 59:19 (median)
Stellaris: Playtime total: 99:01 (average) 22:55 (median)
EU4 (I assume you meant EU4): Playtime total: 212:53 (average) 21:32 (median)
CK2 is probably bugged or misfiled because of the free version because it is ridiculously low.
BL: Playtime total: 75:24 (average) 45:51 (median)
It sure did and I went with 190 because PDS titles as a whole were used as his claim. Even then, @Life_Erikson won't say how many he considers to be a good percentage of players breaking quad digits in their playtime because he's just making it up.
...
Again, where are you guys getting these numbers from? Are you using SteamLadder opt-ins or something?
Paradox Titles do not allow achievement compatibility with mods, even with just cosmetic changes they're uncommon. can't be a comparison at all, neither direct or indirect.
Howlongis, and HLTB for rough numbers.
Im not sure what steamspy says (I’m not logged in and about to go to bed so I can’t be asked to do it right now), but still. Even if some people aren’t opted in with public profiles on steam ladder, this sample is very indicative of the overall bannerlord player base. The simple fact is that very few people have breached 1k hours on bannerlord. Should steam ladder be wrong, I wouldn’t put it over a hundred. Of course, I must recognize @Duh_TaleWorlds, yes, you are a very special person ? (no insult intended, I merely used his own meme. I am a meme thief after all)
And back onto the topic of the whole steam reviews fiasco that went down, if you look at steams actual reviews and filter it through a playtime of only people with over 100 hours- it is 21,506 reviewers out of the 131,668 reviews in total, this means only 16% of players with reviews have more than a 100 hours.
there are 48,699 with over 50 hours for reviews.. only 37% of the reviews have more than 50 hours into Bannerlord.
That's 63% of people who rated the game which in Bannerlord gameplay loop have only just finished the early stages of mince and repeat looter battles and travelling for mundane quests.
there are 48,699 with over 50 hours for reviews.. only 37% of the reviews have more than 50 hours into Bannerlord.
That's 63% of people who rated the game which in Bannerlord gameplay loop have only just finished the early stages of mince and repeat looter battles and travelling for mundane quests.
Howlongis, and HLTB for rough numbers.
Everyone uses estimation, including howlongis.io.
edit: HLTB apparently isn't even measuring playtime really, just how long it takes people to beat a game, self-reported.
Last edited:
Impressive but I guess most of this time is for testing reasons, right?
20 year snowball test runs on auto-pilot had nothing to do with it.
Good and honest work needs to be rewarded anyways.
Mushbeast
Knight at Arms
The fact Armagan went AWOL after launch sorta says it all. Saying that, I don't think the game was intended to be a scam, but rather a failed product that they needed to make their money back on, which I still find in pretty bad faith considering the effort that went into building hype over the years.
That's maybe a bit harsh but you sort of get the sentiment from some of the developers that the game didn't end up as what they wanted to create.
That's maybe a bit harsh but you sort of get the sentiment from some of the developers that the game didn't end up as what they wanted to create.
(Not shameless advertising, I promise)
Here is a video I created of my clan and I playing on the Warband mod “Persistent Kingdoms” from Monday to last night. As you can see there are nearly a hundred people on the server, almost all of which I have interacted with at least once on the topic of bannerlord. All of them are waiting for the Kingdoms mod to develop, which cannot finish without private servers. So we wait on warband, with a huge lack of features that could be implemented in the Bannerlord version. But, because TW refuses to give us private servers, we have no other choice. We found ways to make it fun, but still. We’d all prefer to be on Bannerlord.
Here is a video I created of my clan and I playing on the Warband mod “Persistent Kingdoms” from Monday to last night. As you can see there are nearly a hundred people on the server, almost all of which I have interacted with at least once on the topic of bannerlord. All of them are waiting for the Kingdoms mod to develop, which cannot finish without private servers. So we wait on warband, with a huge lack of features that could be implemented in the Bannerlord version. But, because TW refuses to give us private servers, we have no other choice. We found ways to make it fun, but still. We’d all prefer to be on Bannerlord.
- Status
