Anonymous
7/17/2025, 4:46:25 AM
No.715676548
>>715675330
That goes for ANY game, not just these. My math might be forgetting something because it's 3am and i'm about to fall asleep but:
You have two games, both with 2400 players in a day. We'll assume they have an even distribution throughout the day.
One game takes 15 minutes to do the daily activity. The amount of concurrent players is low because they spread out over that times.
If all players were evenly spread across the day then it would have a concurrent count of 25
The other game takes an hour to do daily activities so the concurrent players will be higher.
If all players were evenly spread across the day then it would have a concurrent count of 100
If either game had all players on at the same time then it would instantly overtake the other.
>>715675980
I'm not saying anything about the game itself, just that he's a fool for using concurrent numbers at all.
That goes for ANY game, not just these. My math might be forgetting something because it's 3am and i'm about to fall asleep but:
You have two games, both with 2400 players in a day. We'll assume they have an even distribution throughout the day.
One game takes 15 minutes to do the daily activity. The amount of concurrent players is low because they spread out over that times.
If all players were evenly spread across the day then it would have a concurrent count of 25
The other game takes an hour to do daily activities so the concurrent players will be higher.
If all players were evenly spread across the day then it would have a concurrent count of 100
If either game had all players on at the same time then it would instantly overtake the other.
>>715675980
I'm not saying anything about the game itself, just that he's a fool for using concurrent numbers at all.