After 430 hours of grinding day in and day out it has finally happened level 80!!!!! Also here are the final results of everything
Wow, fantastic job! If I was to do it in that amount of time, I'm about 1/4 the way there. You aren't done yet, though. Flintlock and Flattener are still in the workings!
rumz, I think @ahole has more Also, congrats mallard! Now you're officially a noob ;D very well done!
Analyzing Mallard King's Miraculous Level 80 Sprint Into Math, and How Close You AreIt has been 31 days (one month) since release. In a month this length, there are 744 hours. 31 days* 24 hours= 744 hours. Of this time, he has played 430 hours. To find the percentage of time he has played, you simply put his hours over total hours gone by. 430 hours ----------- =~ 57.7% 744 hours Therefore, he has played almost 60% of the time since release. @Mallard King , you've done good! So, how close (timewise) are you to meeting lvl 80 head-on? Well, it is simple. Consider Mallard King's overall 430 hours is average. Put your current hours over that, and you'll get your answer. 102 hours (my total) --------------------------------------- =~ 23.7% 430 hours (assuming average time) Therefore, if I am to keep playing at the pace I am, I will be lvl 80 within 4 months. Remember, though, this is simply a projected time. It could take 3 months for me; it could take 6. All this is is an estimated projection. So, how can I calculate that in terms of xp? This is another projection. You start with putting the xp required for becoming lvl 80 (352,000) under your total xp. If math is any indication, these two projections should come out similar, because they both rely on time played in-game. However, let's see if this is true for me. 57116 xp ------------ =~16.2% 352000 xp Perfect! Math does indeed indicate a relationship between the two. One projection has me finishing in a little more than 4 months, but the other projection has me finishing in a little more than 6 months. These projections are NOT 100% accurate, but they use proportional relationships, and if you play a certain amount per day, you are likely to go with them. I might post this as a thread in its own right. This is some pretty useful stuff. With this, even the person who is bad at math could do it with a calculator. I hope you guys enjoyed this!
Thank you for all the work that went into this. I know will be occupying myself every now and then seeing how close I am. This will come in handy when Prestiges are out and it takes 80 for each one. My numbers: 39.5% (170 hours) 30.0% (108,249 xp)
Notice: I made a very small error. The xp to get to lvl 80 is actually 352,000. I'm not sure if this affects your post or not... ...but this is just a general notification. It has been edited in both posts.
I'm not sure how anyone can play a game 430 hours in one month and still have a "not recommended" review for the game on steam. Just sayin peace
Two scenarios... Either he didn't like the game at first, and wrote a negative review in the early stages. Like saying a song is bad and after 10 listenings, it's good. Or he simply hasn't made a review, yet. (I don't know if he has or not)
Just because I personally put a lot of time into a game doesn't mean i should automatically recommend it to others as there are plenty of issues with the game and community as a whole that not a lot of people will be as willing as me to look past it. Before judging the negative review based on the hours i put into the game you should take to time to read it first and you should see why i gave the rating i did. also if you did read it you would know from the note on the bottom my review that this is not my final judgement on the game as i plan to revise my review/rating every month or so.
Well I have 516 hours playing RUST. RUST is a despicable game. The community are a bunch of dicks. I don't trust anyone in that game and never will again. The things I've seen in that game are shocking to say the least. and disgusting to say the best. I don't want my 12 year old niece to play that game. I don't even think that game is good for anyone to be playing! BUT I think I got my 20 bucks worth... to each their own, I think it's the single most influential review of the game on steam. I think that review is hurting the sales of a nice indie game developer. And I think you have your moneys worth.. just my 2 cents, and I'm done with this. No offence to you personally Mallard.
I understand where you are coming from and i don't take any offence to what you are saying, but at the end of the day the point of reviews is sharing your thoughts of a game with potential buyers so they know what exactly they are getting into if they do decide to purchase the game. Yes i may have personally got my moneys worth out of the game i wont deny that, but that does not mean i'm prepared to recommend it to others because how do you know others will look past the issues i have mentioned will continue to play to get their moneys worth? If i were to just ignore issues and problems and just talk about how great the game is, people will buy the game with high expectations of the game and may end up disappointed and leave their own negative review which would also hurt sales. Like with your earlier example with rust even though you put a lot of time into the game and felt you got your moneys worth you are not prepared yourself to recommend the game to other people. A negative review is never a completely negative thing as critique is important if you want to see changes and improvements because if everyone just says how great something is while ignoring the issues kchamp will assume the the game does not have any issues since no one brings them up. Again my current review is not the final review as things change the review will change.
Haha the people on rust are literally the worst. Before long you realize you've become one of them lol. But yeah perfect example of how a game can still be worth it despite the people.
Well, I think that this would be more true if it was more focused on singleplayer. However, it isn't, and kChamp actually states "Shellshock Live has been community-driven from the beginning" in his opening in the Store page. Now, add the people from RUST, for example, into this game. Then, it isn't really community-driven anymore, is it? In fact, if we insert those same people at the start of SSL, the second or third ones are never made. Community is a major part of the game, and will remain so. If the community is hurt by other people who aren't nice, isn't it lawful to post a negative review about what is the premise of even continuing to get here? I think the review may hurt sales, but if the community really ruins the experience, so be it. Now, don't get me wrong. I love this game. It isn't quite as addictive as the second one was, and it is harder to progress, but it is still worth the $15. However, if the community is the center of it and they act poorly, well, Mallard is right: They'll just make their own negative reviews, and others won't buy it. By posting his review, he actually might save kChamp some money. Sorry @kChamp
Mallard and I talked about it. Steam really needs a rating between "recommended" and "not recommended" they need a neutral rating for instances like these.
Well, technically there is a neutral one: Simply not posting at all. Steam assumes you have decided whether or not you like the game or not when you review. I agree, but I don't think it is 100% required. I am pretty sure the community will get better over time, and Mallard's review can become a positive.
Steam bases the overall game's rating off of reviews. For example, if most reviews are positive, it will say "Mostly Positive." (Or a close derivative of that.) If they are about 50/50, it will say "Mixed" or something similar.
They were talking about the individual reviews, not the overall rating of the game. They were complaining there was only a thumbs up and thumbs down, and that there should be a middle-of-the-road option. As far as I can tell, nothing was stated about overall ratings for the game.
