500K players on 117 servers means the server cap would be around 4500-5000 players, that doesn't sounds to terrible... Unless they have other servers not counted in to the 117. Off course some players have already stopped playing and if many of them is on your server you will feel a bit alone.
Having to mirror servers however sounds stupid, if the server is full, just don't let any more players, some players are bound to not subscribe next month anyways opening up space.
Someone said AoC had 40 players in a zone BTW, that's not true, AoC have 48 in non city zones, citys can hold more....
all it needs is time no mmo ever releases as the finished product. Just give it a few months for the polish and most if not all the legit complaints will be dealt with.
500K players on 117 servers means the server cap would be around 4500-5000 players, that doesn't sounds to terrible... Unless they have other servers not counted in to the 117. Off course some players have already stopped playing and if many of them is on your server you will feel a bit alone. Having to mirror servers however sounds stupid, if the server is full, just don't let any more players, some players are bound to not subscribe next month anyways opening up space. Someone said AoC had 40 players in a zone BTW, that's not true, AoC have 48 in non city zones, citys can hold more....
Actually - alot of those servers were added later so I think the release number is better to use until we have updated sales figures. However - either way it is basically WoW numbers on the servers but some servers are low/low at the moment.
-You can only enjoy the game if you are on a high populated server. Which is why people have different experiences in the game.
-Too linear
-Not Sandbox
-3/4 of the equipment is worthless. All you need is renown gear. Which you get renown from pq's anyways so no point on getting that pq's equipment. Just run to end of map and get your gear, there's no risk in it.
Bodypass is making things up (see below) - unless he shows numbers from real sources he can be ignored (also see his post history). On Low/Low servers it will be hard to get action going before more players join them. On Med/Med and above it is not really an issue. And on Full/Full scenarios pop within 1-2 minutes all nights through - on my server I average below 60sec in the queue. The only problem right now is that scenarios are so efficient in terms of EXP and renown that people avoid open RvR before T4. I am pretty sure that Mythic will fix that however based on Marks comments earlier this week. On server capacity: 63 servers and 500,000 accounts creates just short of 8,000 accounts per server on average now at launch. With 25% of accounts active at prime time (which is very true for each MMO i have played - WoW, LOtRO, DAoC), it means that on average each side (Destro and Order) as 1,000 players online. Now - we know some servers are full and others are Low. On Full servers you can then conclude that they are basically at the WoW metric for number of players at prime time.
There are 63 EU servers ... for 200-250 K EU players.
LOTRO had excatly 11 servers.
Care to calcluate your OWN calculations! = 3.9 K per server.
From your OWN "high specialized experience" 25 % accounts played active at prime time
Means .... 500K/500 capped servers. 1K per server on prime time as the limit.
Strange isn't it,? We arrive at exaclty the same figure as the ONLY official figure mentioned by Mythic at launch.
---
So with respect to your OWN calculations you can say I am not far off : the cap on server populations is way out of synch with the spreadout content found in the game.
AoC used instances to avoid the lag. Mythic uses the old DAoC engine and is keeping the population cap very low to avoid server lag. Could anyone check on the server cap in DAoC now please?
More players since launch: not at all: first day activity on Sep 18 th: 42801 hours
Players on Oct 6th 42.130 hours.
Based on your own calculations btw.
No wonder people can' t be found over the 4 Tiers to do all content. No wonder 4 capitols were left out (avoiding even more "spread").
Now next question? Why don't they raise the cap? ----> You know the answer, well I'll give you the opportunity to explain.
500K players on 117 servers means the server cap would be around 4500-5000 players, that doesn't sounds to terrible... Unless they have other servers not counted in to the 117. Off course some players have already stopped playing and if many of them is on your server you will feel a bit alone. Having to mirror servers however sounds stupid, if the server is full, just don't let any more players, some players are bound to not subscribe next month anyways opening up space. Someone said AoC had 40 players in a zone BTW, that's not true, AoC have 48 in non city zones, citys can hold more....
Actually there are rarely more then 20% of the actual subs online at peak time. So if they have 500k users on 117 servers then thats like 4500 subs per server or like 900 people logged onto any server at peak?
Bodypass is making things up (see below) - unless he shows numbers from real sources he can be ignored (also see his post history). On Low/Low servers it will be hard to get action going before more players join them. On Med/Med and above it is not really an issue. And on Full/Full scenarios pop within 1-2 minutes all nights through - on my server I average below 60sec in the queue. The only problem right now is that scenarios are so efficient in terms of EXP and renown that people avoid open RvR before T4. I am pretty sure that Mythic will fix that however based on Marks comments earlier this week. On server capacity: 63 servers and 500,000 accounts creates just short of 8,000 accounts per server on average now at launch. With 25% of accounts active at prime time (which is very true for each MMO i have played - WoW, LOtRO, DAoC), it means that on average each side (Destro and Order) as 1,000 players online. Now - we know some servers are full and others are Low. On Full servers you can then conclude that they are basically at the WoW metric for number of players at prime time.
There are 63 EU servers ... for 200-250 K EU players.
LOTRO had excatly 11 servers.
Care to calcluate your OWN calculations! = 3.9 K per server.
From your OWN "high specialized experience" 25 % accounts played active at prime time
Means .... 500K/500 capped servers. 1K per server on prime time as the limit.
Strange isn't it,? We arrive at exaclty the same figure as the ONLY official figure mentioned by Mythic at launch.
---
So with respect to your OWN calculations you can say I am not far off : the cap on server populations is way out of synch with the spreadout content found in the game.
AoC used instances to avoid the lag. Mythic uses the old DAoC engine and is keeping the population cap very low to avoid server lag. Could anyone check on the server cap in DAoC now please?
More players since launch: not at all: first day activity on Sep 18 th: 42801 hours
Players on Oct 6th 42.130 hours.
Based on your own calculations btw.
No wonder people can' t be found over the 4 Tiers to do all content. No wonder 4 capitols were left out (avoiding even more "spread").
Now next question? Why don't they raise the cap? ----> You know the answer, well I'll give you the opportunity to explain.
It s such a vocal minority saying they can t find people for this and that. As a matter of fact it s EASY to find people to do anything. In WOW for example you have to form a group to do instances, raids etc, Theres no difference in this game except it s EASIER. People must have a hard time chatting, sending tells. Yes i know the general chat might suck, and they re going to change it, until then use your keyboard. I have not once had an issue getting a group going for anything at all and i m on a med/med to high/high server depending on the time of day. Enough of the assumptions all servers or certain areas are like this. They simply aren t.
Kinda funny the American Servers have over 2000 per side, when full. Since during Beta they were testing and we were told each time we logged in how many were on each side on the server. The Main guild I am on has almost 100 people on it and were 10th on the list (Most we have had on at one time is 25 though). We definately didn't make up 1/20th of the server.
It's easy to find people, go to a warcamp and you'll see a load of them queing up for scenarios, although not much else going on apart from that on my server, no PQ's or world RvR to speak of.
yeah its right around 1k logged on during peak times. considering you are on a high/full server.
if you are on a med/low you will *HATE* this game. not fun only playin with like 400 people which acutally is around 200 each side. game is way too big to support so little players.
500K players on 117 servers means the server cap would be around 4500-5000 players, that doesn't sounds to terrible... Unless they have other servers not counted in to the 117. Off course some players have already stopped playing and if many of them is on your server you will feel a bit alone. Having to mirror servers however sounds stupid, if the server is full, just don't let any more players, some players are bound to not subscribe next month anyways opening up space. Someone said AoC had 40 players in a zone BTW, that's not true, AoC have 48 in non city zones, citys can hold more....
Actually there are rarely more then 20% of the actual subs online at peak time. So if they have 500k users on 117 servers then thats like 4500 subs per server or like 900 people logged onto any server at peak?
Just the same calculations I did for EU.
Coming to the same number of 500/500 people playing on 1 server capped. It is exactly the same number Mythic themselves said at launch (before being muted on the subject).
A server park for 117 servers. That would mean Wow needed to have at least 500+ servers for the +2 Million subs in EU alone. On last count they just had 247 EU servers.
From whatever way you want to look at it: always the same conclusion.
THERE is you real core problem. Too low server caps to have an active Tier 4 RvR.PQ/Scenario feed.
500K players on 117 servers means the server cap would be around 4500-5000 players, that doesn't sounds to terrible... Unless they have other servers not counted in to the 117. Off course some players have already stopped playing and if many of them is on your server you will feel a bit alone. Having to mirror servers however sounds stupid, if the server is full, just don't let any more players, some players are bound to not subscribe next month anyways opening up space. Someone said AoC had 40 players in a zone BTW, that's not true, AoC have 48 in non city zones, citys can hold more....
Actually there are rarely more then 20% of the actual subs online at peak time. So if they have 500k users on 117 servers then thats like 4500 subs per server or like 900 people logged onto any server at peak?
Just the same calcualtions I did for EU.
Coming to the same number of 500/500 people playing on 1 server capped. It is exactly the same number Mythic themselves said at launch (before being muted on the subject).
A server park for 117 servers. That would mean Wow needed to have at least 500+ servers for the +2 Million subs in EU alone. On last count they just had 247 EU servers.
From whatever way you want to look at it: always the same conclusion.
THERE is you real core problem. Too low server caps to have an active Tier 4 RvR.PQ/Scenario feed.
Kinda funny the American Servers have over 2000 per side, when full. Since during Beta they were testing and we were told each time we logged in how many were on each side on the server. The Main guild I am on has almost 100 people on it and were 10th on the list (Most we have had on at one time is 25 though). We definately didn't make up 1/20th of the server.
Very interesting info.
Just proves what I said above: on pre launch drastically lowering the server caps to improve the laggy feeling in the spell casts and off beat timings.
FunCom did it with lowering the number of players in one instance with a so called "miracle" patch 3 days before launch. The AoC client was way too demanding for the hardware to get things going with too much players on screen at once, hence they lowerd the instances to 40/50 players.
Mythic could have lowered the server caps in an attempt to streamline the much heard lag feeling on spell casts.
Kinda funny the American Servers have over 2000 per side, when full. Since during Beta they were testing and we were told each time we logged in how many were on each side on the server. The Main guild I am on has almost 100 people on it and were 10th on the list (Most we have had on at one time is 25 though). We definately didn't make up 1/20th of the server.
Very interesting info.
Just proves what I said above: on pre launch drastically lowering the server caps to improve the laggy feeling in the spell casts and off beat timings.
FunCom did it with lowering the number of players in one instance with a so called "miracle" patch 3 days before launch. The AoC client was way too demanding for the hardware to get things going with too much players on screen at once, hence they lowerd the instances to 40/50 players.
Mythic could have lowered the server caps in an attempt to streamline the much heard lag feeling on spell casts.
What I said doesn't prove that. It proves its a lot more then what you say. Our guild is not 1/20th of a server.
Kinda funny the American Servers have over 2000 per side, when full. Since during Beta they were testing and we were told each time we logged in how many were on each side on the server. The Main guild I am on has almost 100 people on it and were 10th on the list (Most we have had on at one time is 25 though). We definately didn't make up 1/20th of the server.
Very interesting info.
Just proves what I said above: on pre launch drastically lowering the server caps to improve the laggy feeling in the spell casts and off beat timings.
FunCom did it with lowering the number of players in one instance with a so called "miracle" patch 3 days before launch. The AoC client was way too demanding for the hardware to get things going with too much players on screen at once, hence they lowerd the instances to 40/50 players.
Mythic could have lowered the server caps in an attempt to streamline the much heard lag feeling on spell casts.
Mythic could have, maybe they did....all assumptions. Theres a guild on my server that had over 80 people on it the other day. So by your assumptions they were close to 1/6th the cap for that side. Yet the server was on high and they were ALL in tier 3. So as i saw this i checked all other areas not tiers that i was in. ALL of them were full or the max of 30 that shows up. considering i did this in at least 10 areas thats another 300. Take into account i was in a Warband in a PQ and there was another WB going on in the same zone at another PQ. So 24=24=48 not 30 that showed up. so 300 in the ares i checked add 18 more in the areas i was in knowing of 2 full WBs, not including some solos, and that guild of 80 or so on NOT in the zone i was in. this=398, that i saw in 11 zones of the WHOLE game. No way is the cap 500 when that alone didn t make a FULL realm.
Kinda funny the American Servers have over 2000 per side, when full. Since during Beta they were testing and we were told each time we logged in how many were on each side on the server. The Main guild I am on has almost 100 people on it and were 10th on the list (Most we have had on at one time is 25 though). We definately didn't make up 1/20th of the server.
Very interesting info.
Just proves what I said above: on pre launch drastically lowering the server caps to improve the laggy feeling in the spell casts and off beat timings.
FunCom did it with lowering the number of players in one instance with a so called "miracle" patch 3 days before launch. The AoC client was way too demanding for the hardware to get things going with too much players on screen at once, hence they lowerd the instances to 40/50 players.
Mythic could have lowered the server caps in an attempt to streamline the much heard lag feeling on spell casts.
What I said doesn't prove that. It proves its a lot more then what you say. Our guild is not 1/20th of a server.
In a guild the same number of % counts btw.
Rarely has a guild of say 100 members acutally more than 20/25 players on line at once.
So on a full server there could be easely 50 guilds with each 50 members and not even reaching 70% capacity of that server.
People - even in other games - the number of people at the same time on line is NOT that big. Like I said 3200 was the maximum for Wow and they had SEPERATE servers for the BG's, not even taxing the main server you level and quest in.
In a guild the same number of % counts btw. Rarely has a guild of say 100 members acutally more than 20/25 players on line at once. So on a full server there could be easely 50 guilds with each 50 members and not even reaching 70% capacity of that server. People - even in other games - the number of people at the same time on line is NOT that big. Like I said 3200 was the maximum for Wow and they had SEPERATE servers for the BG's, not even taxing the main server you level and quest in.
And in WAR....
- The scenario server is separate
- One Tier in one pairing in WAR is separate hardware-wise (just like the WoW world today is 3 servers - Kalimdor, Easter Kingdoms and Outland)
- A Full server is only labeled Full when people are online - not based on number of accounts created on the server.
So it is basically the same in terms of people capacity etc. I am sure that Mythic right now is gathering all the date to tweak the final numbers but on a full/full server there is alot of action - apart from the noted drawback that Open RvR in T1 to T3 is not rewarding enough from an EXP ptw.
And btw - I was wrong with one number the total number of servers at release since I forgot the german, italian and spanish ones. In total the release server list was 109 servers with 500,000 accounts or 4,5K accounts per server on average. Now - the cap is much larger than the average since we have low/low servers at prime time and full/full servers at prime time (. The conclusion is still the same that the account per server and players per server at prime-time is very close to the WoW servers (somewhere in the high 2000's in terms of player online at prime on full servers - which is...once again, very close to the 3200 in WoW).
Kinda funny the American Servers have over 2000 per side, when full. Since during Beta they were testing and we were told each time we logged in how many were on each side on the server. The Main guild I am on has almost 100 people on it and were 10th on the list (Most we have had on at one time is 25 though). We definately didn't make up 1/20th of the server.
Very interesting info.
Just proves what I said above: on pre launch drastically lowering the server caps to improve the laggy feeling in the spell casts and off beat timings.
FunCom did it with lowering the number of players in one instance with a so called "miracle" patch 3 days before launch. The AoC client was way too demanding for the hardware to get things going with too much players on screen at once, hence they lowerd the instances to 40/50 players.
Mythic could have lowered the server caps in an attempt to streamline the much heard lag feeling on spell casts.
What I said doesn't prove that. It proves its a lot more then what you say. Our guild is not 1/20th of a server.
In a guild the same number of % counts btw.
Rarely has a guild of say 100 members acutally more than 20/25 players on line at once.
So on a full server there could be easely 50 guilds with each 50 members and not even reaching 70% capacity of that server.
People - even in other games - the number of people at the same time on line is NOT that big. Like I said 3200 was the maximum for Wow and they had SEPERATE servers for the BG's, not even taxing the main server you level and quest in.
These numbers were last taken Sept 25 before Mythic Changed their search.
Azazel - Order: 2074, Destruction: 2334, Ratio = 1:1.1
Now I'm using my server as an example, just because i have a decent Feel for it.
500 is far to low, just on that feeling.
I've encountered Keep sieges with at least 30 Destruction at any one time. So considering Order matches that about evenly... you have at least 30 on destro, 30 on order. ( disorganization is a killer)
60 in that tier zone * 4 = 240.
Now at this point in the game there are people questing in all 3 tiers, i've been swapping between them, and Altdorf (which isn't included in my numbers)
so 240 * 3 would place you at about 720 at minimum just from those numbers.
30 even feels too low considering scenario queues never seem long, and I can still find Multiple active PQ's across the various chapters in the tier. Certainly only one PQ is actively done in each chapter, but I'm behind and can skip between ch 6 and 9 in the Empire area and find at least 10 people on the popular PQ.
So, if my 30 from before is just for that RvR area... keep sieging... capture point. say perhaps you can add another 40 for ch 6, 7, 8, 9... just for those PQ's.
Then you give, say another 4... 3... people, per chapter area, just doing regular quests....
that would be another 12.
30 Open RvR.
40 PQ's in one tier
12 Doing random stuff...
Even the number doing Random stuff seems low... but i'll go with it... mainly because on Order side, you'd think with 30 people you might be able to do stuff... disorganization : /
82 people in one tier doing their thing. This doesn't include those that are in a scenario at any one time. Since my guild has been involved with multiple scenarios in one tier... at least 3 different ones going on at once. one can assume there is at least 36 per side doing these... but no clue on how many are going at once.
82 * 4 tiers = 328
328 * 3 zones for the 3 zones...
984 on one side
984 * 2 for Destro and Order
1868 for a full server.
Now compare that to the 500, based on my estimations and multiplication.
Sure... i'm more than likely off... but by 1300?
Unlikely. Even if I was off by 800, it would be acceptable to know that there are 1000 people for server cap.
Which according to those Warpop numbers would be about accurate if everyone had just one more alt. Some have 3 to 4, but players like myself who only have 1 character... period... help reduce that.
Now seeing that number I get a bit concerned... mainly because I have not had too much experience with Tier 4 myself.
Still... 500 just doesn't seem right. 1000, i'm willing to give... but it still feels like somewhere between 1000 and my 1864.
When I get to max level and can traverse the tiers with ease, I will consider revising this a bit more. The cross zone scenario queuing helped spread people out.
P.S.
On launch, the caps were drastically lowered, to more than likely that 500 cap you use, in order to force people to spread out.
My CE box says ##### / 60,000 if i remember right... so I'd like to know what the actual cap was on each of the servers for those CE's that were sold.
2 servers for 1000 people, 60 servers needed for the full 60,000 CE's
I don't remember there being that many servers... so likely the cap was higher. 500 per side? 1000 per server... if that 60,000 CE's was EU and NA... 30 servers open in NA at launch?
Kinda funny the American Servers have over 2000 per side, when full. Since during Beta they were testing and we were told each time we logged in how many were on each side on the server. The Main guild I am on has almost 100 people on it and were 10th on the list (Most we have had on at one time is 25 though). We definately didn't make up 1/20th of the server.
Very interesting info.
Just proves what I said above: on pre launch drastically lowering the server caps to improve the laggy feeling in the spell casts and off beat timings.
FunCom did it with lowering the number of players in one instance with a so called "miracle" patch 3 days before launch. The AoC client was way too demanding for the hardware to get things going with too much players on screen at once, hence they lowerd the instances to 40/50 players.
Mythic could have lowered the server caps in an attempt to streamline the much heard lag feeling on spell casts.
What I said doesn't prove that. It proves its a lot more then what you say. Our guild is not 1/20th of a server.
In a guild the same number of % counts btw.
Rarely has a guild of say 100 members acutally more than 20/25 players on line at once.
So on a full server there could be easely 50 guilds with each 50 members and not even reaching 70% capacity of that server.
People - even in other games - the number of people at the same time on line is NOT that big. Like I said 3200 was the maximum for Wow and they had SEPERATE servers for the BG's, not even taxing the main server you level and quest in.
These numbers were last taken Sept 25 before Mythic Changed their search.
Azazel - Order: 2074, Destruction: 2334, Ratio = 1:1.1
Now I'm using my server as an example, just because i have a decent Feel to it.
500 is far to low, just on that feeling.
I've encountered Keep sieges with at least 30 Destruction at any one time. So considering Order matches that about evenly... you have at least 30 on destro, 30 on order.
60 in that tier zone * 4 = 240.
Now at this point in the game there are people questing in all 3 tiers, i've been swapping be tween them, and Altdorf (which isn't included in my numbers)
so 240 * 3 would place you at about 720 at minimum just from those numbers.
30 even feels too low considering server queues never seem long, and I can still find Multiple active PQ's across the various chapters in the tier. Certainly only one PQ is actively done in each chapter, but I'm behind and can skip between ch 6 and 9 in the Empire area and find at least 10 people on the popular PQ.
So, if my 30 from before is just for that RvR area... keep sieging. say perhaps you can add another 40 for ch 6, 7, 8, 9... just for those PQ's.
Then you give, say another 4... 3... people, per chapter area, just doing regular quests....
that would be another 12.
30 Open RvR.
40 PQ's in one tier
12 Doing random stuff...
Even the number doing Random stuff seems low... but i'll go with it... mainly because on Order side, you'd think with 30 people you might be able to do stuff... disorganization : /
82 people in one tier doing their thing. This doesn't include those that are in a scenario at any one time. Since my guild has been involved with multiple scenarios in one tier... at least 3 different ones going on at once. one can assume there is at least 36 per side doing these... but no clue on how many are going at once.
82 * 4 tiers = 328
328 * 3 zones for the 3 zones...
984 on one side
984 * 2 for Desto and Order
1868 for a full server.
Now compare that to the 500, based on my estimations and multiplication.
Sure... i'm more than likely off... but by 1300?
Unlikely. Even if I was off by 800, it would be acceptable to know that there are 1000 people per server cap.
Which according to those Warpop numbers would be about accurate if everyone had just one more alt. Some have 3 to 4, but players like myself who only have 1 character... period... help reduce that.
Now seeing that number I get a bit concerned... mainly because I have not had too much experience with Tier 4 myself.
Still... 500 just doesn't seem right. 1000, i'm willing to give... but it still feels like somewhere between 1000 and my 1864.
When I get to max level and can traverse the tiers with ease, I will consider revising this a bit more.
500 + 500 = how many ? 1000.
I never said 500 people on one server. I said 500/500 cap. So how can you come up with a difference of 1300?
You just multiply the Tiers with the same factor. Just as if there are exactly the same number of people in each Tier.
Math is much simpler: 63 EU servers for the EU market which is 200-250 K players with a 25% number on line in prime time and you arrive at around 1K per server.
LOTRO = 11 servers, Wow with 2M + subs= 247 servers. WAR with 200-250 K subs= 63 servers.
That shows more than enough the War servers are too low capped. Hence empty worlds to do all the content (RvR/PQ/ over the whole world).
I never said 500 people on one server. I said 500/500 cap. So how can you come up with a difference of 1307. You just multiply the Tiers with the same factor. Just as if there are exactly the same number of people in each Tier.
Which, by the end of this week people will be pushing through tier 4 with more force.
Others will be rolling alts, healers, to try and catch up... some of those in upper tiers are helping those alts.
it's hectic.
Now with those cross-zone queuing scenarios people are not trying to stay in one area and are running through other zones.
Like I said, a hard cap of 500 per side doesn't feel right. 800-1000 per side would explain a few things and show what was going on in a decent fashion.
Kinda funny the American Servers have over 2000 per side, when full. Since during Beta they were testing and we were told each time we logged in how many were on each side on the server. The Main guild I am on has almost 100 people on it and were 10th on the list (Most we have had on at one time is 25 though). We definately didn't make up 1/20th of the server.
Very interesting info.
Just proves what I said above: on pre launch drastically lowering the server caps to improve the laggy feeling in the spell casts and off beat timings.
FunCom did it with lowering the number of players in one instance with a so called "miracle" patch 3 days before launch. The AoC client was way too demanding for the hardware to get things going with too much players on screen at once, hence they lowerd the instances to 40/50 players.
Mythic could have lowered the server caps in an attempt to streamline the much heard lag feeling on spell casts.
What I said doesn't prove that. It proves its a lot more then what you say. Our guild is not 1/20th of a server.
In a guild the same number of % counts btw.
Rarely has a guild of say 100 members acutally more than 20/25 players on line at once.
So on a full server there could be easely 50 guilds with each 50 members and not even reaching 70% capacity of that server.
People - even in other games - the number of people at the same time on line is NOT that big. Like I said 3200 was the maximum for Wow and they had SEPERATE servers for the BG's, not even taxing the main server you level and quest in.
These numbers were last taken Sept 25 before Mythic Changed their search.
Azazel - Order: 2074, Destruction: 2334, Ratio = 1:1.1
Now I'm using my server as an example, just because i have a decent Feel to it.
500 is far to low, just on that feeling.
I've encountered Keep sieges with at least 30 Destruction at any one time. So considering Order matches that about evenly... you have at least 30 on destro, 30 on order.
60 in that tier zone * 4 = 240.
Now at this point in the game there are people questing in all 3 tiers, i've been swapping be tween them, and Altdorf (which isn't included in my numbers)
so 240 * 3 would place you at about 720 at minimum just from those numbers.
30 even feels too low considering server queues never seem long, and I can still find Multiple active PQ's across the various chapters in the tier. Certainly only one PQ is actively done in each chapter, but I'm behind and can skip between ch 6 and 9 in the Empire area and find at least 10 people on the popular PQ.
So, if my 30 from before is just for that RvR area... keep sieging. say perhaps you can add another 40 for ch 6, 7, 8, 9... just for those PQ's.
Then you give, say another 4... 3... people, per chapter area, just doing regular quests....
that would be another 12.
30 Open RvR.
40 PQ's in one tier
12 Doing random stuff...
Even the number doing Random stuff seems low... but i'll go with it... mainly because on Order side, you'd think with 30 people you might be able to do stuff... disorganization : /
82 people in one tier doing their thing. This doesn't include those that are in a scenario at any one time. Since my guild has been involved with multiple scenarios in one tier... at least 3 different ones going on at once. one can assume there is at least 36 per side doing these... but no clue on how many are going at once.
82 * 4 tiers = 328
328 * 3 zones for the 3 zones...
984 on one side
984 * 2 for Desto and Order
1868 for a full server.
Now compare that to the 500, based on my estimations and multiplication.
Sure... i'm more than likely off... but by 1300?
Unlikely. Even if I was off by 800, it would be acceptable to know that there are 1000 people per server cap.
Which according to those Warpop numbers would be about accurate if everyone had just one more alt. Some have 3 to 4, but players like myself who only have 1 character... period... help reduce that.
Now seeing that number I get a bit concerned... mainly because I have not had too much experience with Tier 4 myself.
Still... 500 just doesn't seem right. 1000, i'm willing to give... but it still feels like somewhere between 1000 and my 1864.
When I get to max level and can traverse the tiers with ease, I will consider revising this a bit more.
500 + 500 = how many ? 1000.
I never said 500 people on one server. I said 500/500 cap. So how can you come up with a difference of 1300?
You just multiply the Tiers with the same factor. Just as if there are exactly the same number of people in each Tier.
Math is much simpler: 63 EU servers for the EU market which is 200-250 K players with a 25% number on line in prime time and you arrive at around 1K per server.
LOTRO = 11 servers, Wow with 2M + subs= 247 servers. WAR with 200-250 K subs= 63 servers.
That shows more than enough the War servers are too low capped. Hence empty worlds to do all the content (RvR/PQ/ over the whole world).
If you don't get it now, you'll never will.
You re the one not getting it, there is no way it s 500/500. As i said above read it again, that is just a small portion of areas. Not including starter, scenarios, main city etc etc. Please stop spouting off stuff you have no clue about.
Also to note: PQs are beginning to show their weakness; lack of players in a certain area, at a certain time, with a certain level. What will happen a year from now when people are re-rolling or joining for the first time and the majority of the players are well into the endgame (lvl 40). Everybody knows that you cannot solo a PQ.
I agree with this, and I think it gets to the heart of the matter. To quote what Jeff Hickman said about PQs in that interview:
“We never actually intended for PQs to be hugely populated and overrun with people. We actually intended them to be destination points as much as places you can wander into. It’s like: you walk into a chapter. There are three PQs. In general, during peak play times, you go into a chapter, there’s going to be people in one of those PQs.”
But then he goes on to say:
"I just think that there are a lot of different ways to experience PQs. It’s like; Why did we make the first stage of PQs so easy? Why did we do that? Because we intended it to be there for solo players. We never intended the solo player to be able to go all the way though from stage one to stage three in a PQ. The loot chest at the end of the PQ is a special reward. The standard reward is your influence reward.”
So, regardless of the intention, to me this is just confusing to the player. In the first round of an instance, you don't need a group, but in the later round you do. It is a simple concept, yes. But in my mind it confuses the objective, and to me this is one of the primary reasons why I find PQs dead. It just goes back to designer intention and player perception. I would say that as a designer, more thought should go into players perception. And its all fine when he says that "no one has ever tried this before. Its a great experiement." That's fine, but lets not pull a Neo on something that is fundamental to your game by saying "you know why this will work? because its never been tried before." That's kind of a lame excuse for something which I feel isn't working out too well. If PQs are fundamental to community play, then design them to be more conducive socially.
So, again, I'm confused by the whole concept of what the PQ is supposed to be. Is it an area where only coordinated teamplay can achieve the objective, or is it a destination point that you simply "wander into" and maybe there will be enough people to meet the objective. To me, the design contradicts itself and we are seeing its effects. Low to no-pop in the PQs, speaking from my experience on my server.
Comments
500K players on 117 servers means the server cap would be around 4500-5000 players, that doesn't sounds to terrible... Unless they have other servers not counted in to the 117. Off course some players have already stopped playing and if many of them is on your server you will feel a bit alone.
Having to mirror servers however sounds stupid, if the server is full, just don't let any more players, some players are bound to not subscribe next month anyways opening up space.
Someone said AoC had 40 players in a zone BTW, that's not true, AoC have 48 in non city zones, citys can hold more....
all it needs is time no mmo ever releases as the finished product. Just give it a few months for the polish and most if not all the legit complaints will be dealt with.
Actually - alot of those servers were added later so I think the release number is better to use until we have updated sales figures. However - either way it is basically WoW numbers on the servers but some servers are low/low at the moment.
There's many things to me.
-You can only enjoy the game if you are on a high populated server. Which is why people have different experiences in the game.
-Too linear
-Not Sandbox
-3/4 of the equipment is worthless. All you need is renown gear. Which you get renown from pq's anyways so no point on getting that pq's equipment. Just run to end of map and get your gear, there's no risk in it.
-Community sucks
-Grind
-Extremely repetetive
-No replay value
-Not a finished game
false statement.
Not only false, but this type of attitude will never force companies to advance the genre.
false statement.
Not only false, but this type of attitude will never force companies to advance the genre.
I know right. lol A lot of people say that about a lot of games. Than it doesn't happen.
There are 63 EU servers ... for 200-250 K EU players.
LOTRO had excatly 11 servers.
Care to calcluate your OWN calculations! = 3.9 K per server.
From your OWN "high specialized experience" 25 % accounts played active at prime time
Means .... 500K/500 capped servers. 1K per server on prime time as the limit.
Strange isn't it,? We arrive at exaclty the same figure as the ONLY official figure mentioned by Mythic at launch.
---
So with respect to your OWN calculations you can say I am not far off : the cap on server populations is way out of synch with the spreadout content found in the game.
AoC used instances to avoid the lag. Mythic uses the old DAoC engine and is keeping the population cap very low to avoid server lag. Could anyone check on the server cap in DAoC now please?
More players since launch: not at all: first day activity on Sep 18 th: 42801 hours
Players on Oct 6th 42.130 hours.
Based on your own calculations btw.
No wonder people can' t be found over the 4 Tiers to do all content. No wonder 4 capitols were left out (avoiding even more "spread").
Now next question? Why don't they raise the cap? ----> You know the answer, well I'll give you the opportunity to explain.
Actually there are rarely more then 20% of the actual subs online at peak time. So if they have 500k users on 117 servers then thats like 4500 subs per server or like 900 people logged onto any server at peak?
---
Ethion
There are 63 EU servers ... for 200-250 K EU players.
LOTRO had excatly 11 servers.
Care to calcluate your OWN calculations! = 3.9 K per server.
From your OWN "high specialized experience" 25 % accounts played active at prime time
Means .... 500K/500 capped servers. 1K per server on prime time as the limit.
Strange isn't it,? We arrive at exaclty the same figure as the ONLY official figure mentioned by Mythic at launch.
---
So with respect to your OWN calculations you can say I am not far off : the cap on server populations is way out of synch with the spreadout content found in the game.
AoC used instances to avoid the lag. Mythic uses the old DAoC engine and is keeping the population cap very low to avoid server lag. Could anyone check on the server cap in DAoC now please?
More players since launch: not at all: first day activity on Sep 18 th: 42801 hours
Players on Oct 6th 42.130 hours.
Based on your own calculations btw.
No wonder people can' t be found over the 4 Tiers to do all content. No wonder 4 capitols were left out (avoiding even more "spread").
Now next question? Why don't they raise the cap? ----> You know the answer, well I'll give you the opportunity to explain.
It s such a vocal minority saying they can t find people for this and that. As a matter of fact it s EASY to find people to do anything. In WOW for example you have to form a group to do instances, raids etc, Theres no difference in this game except it s EASIER. People must have a hard time chatting, sending tells. Yes i know the general chat might suck, and they re going to change it, until then use your keyboard. I have not once had an issue getting a group going for anything at all and i m on a med/med to high/high server depending on the time of day. Enough of the assumptions all servers or certain areas are like this. They simply aren t.
Kinda funny the American Servers have over 2000 per side, when full. Since during Beta they were testing and we were told each time we logged in how many were on each side on the server. The Main guild I am on has almost 100 people on it and were 10th on the list (Most we have had on at one time is 25 though). We definately didn't make up 1/20th of the server.
It's easy to find people, go to a warcamp and you'll see a load of them queing up for scenarios, although not much else going on apart from that on my server, no PQ's or world RvR to speak of.
yeah its right around 1k logged on during peak times. considering you are on a high/full server.
if you are on a med/low you will *HATE* this game. not fun only playin with like 400 people which acutally is around 200 each side. game is way too big to support so little players.
Actually there are rarely more then 20% of the actual subs online at peak time. So if they have 500k users on 117 servers then thats like 4500 subs per server or like 900 people logged onto any server at peak?
Just the same calculations I did for EU.
Coming to the same number of 500/500 people playing on 1 server capped. It is exactly the same number Mythic themselves said at launch (before being muted on the subject).
A server park for 117 servers. That would mean Wow needed to have at least 500+ servers for the +2 Million subs in EU alone. On last count they just had 247 EU servers.
From whatever way you want to look at it: always the same conclusion.
THERE is you real core problem. Too low server caps to have an active Tier 4 RvR.PQ/Scenario feed.
Actually there are rarely more then 20% of the actual subs online at peak time. So if they have 500k users on 117 servers then thats like 4500 subs per server or like 900 people logged onto any server at peak?
Just the same calcualtions I did for EU.
Coming to the same number of 500/500 people playing on 1 server capped. It is exactly the same number Mythic themselves said at launch (before being muted on the subject).
A server park for 117 servers. That would mean Wow needed to have at least 500+ servers for the +2 Million subs in EU alone. On last count they just had 247 EU servers.
From whatever way you want to look at it: always the same conclusion.
THERE is you real core problem. Too low server caps to have an active Tier 4 RvR.PQ/Scenario feed.
Theres no way in hell it s 500/500 capped.
Very interesting info.
Just proves what I said above: on pre launch drastically lowering the server caps to improve the laggy feeling in the spell casts and off beat timings.
FunCom did it with lowering the number of players in one instance with a so called "miracle" patch 3 days before launch. The AoC client was way too demanding for the hardware to get things going with too much players on screen at once, hence they lowerd the instances to 40/50 players.
Mythic could have lowered the server caps in an attempt to streamline the much heard lag feeling on spell casts.
Very interesting info.
Just proves what I said above: on pre launch drastically lowering the server caps to improve the laggy feeling in the spell casts and off beat timings.
FunCom did it with lowering the number of players in one instance with a so called "miracle" patch 3 days before launch. The AoC client was way too demanding for the hardware to get things going with too much players on screen at once, hence they lowerd the instances to 40/50 players.
Mythic could have lowered the server caps in an attempt to streamline the much heard lag feeling on spell casts.
What I said doesn't prove that. It proves its a lot more then what you say. Our guild is not 1/20th of a server.
Very interesting info.
Just proves what I said above: on pre launch drastically lowering the server caps to improve the laggy feeling in the spell casts and off beat timings.
FunCom did it with lowering the number of players in one instance with a so called "miracle" patch 3 days before launch. The AoC client was way too demanding for the hardware to get things going with too much players on screen at once, hence they lowerd the instances to 40/50 players.
Mythic could have lowered the server caps in an attempt to streamline the much heard lag feeling on spell casts.
Mythic could have, maybe they did....all assumptions. Theres a guild on my server that had over 80 people on it the other day. So by your assumptions they were close to 1/6th the cap for that side. Yet the server was on high and they were ALL in tier 3. So as i saw this i checked all other areas not tiers that i was in. ALL of them were full or the max of 30 that shows up. considering i did this in at least 10 areas thats another 300. Take into account i was in a Warband in a PQ and there was another WB going on in the same zone at another PQ. So 24=24=48 not 30 that showed up. so 300 in the ares i checked add 18 more in the areas i was in knowing of 2 full WBs, not including some solos, and that guild of 80 or so on NOT in the zone i was in. this=398, that i saw in 11 zones of the WHOLE game. No way is the cap 500 when that alone didn t make a FULL realm.
Very interesting info.
Just proves what I said above: on pre launch drastically lowering the server caps to improve the laggy feeling in the spell casts and off beat timings.
FunCom did it with lowering the number of players in one instance with a so called "miracle" patch 3 days before launch. The AoC client was way too demanding for the hardware to get things going with too much players on screen at once, hence they lowerd the instances to 40/50 players.
Mythic could have lowered the server caps in an attempt to streamline the much heard lag feeling on spell casts.
What I said doesn't prove that. It proves its a lot more then what you say. Our guild is not 1/20th of a server.
In a guild the same number of % counts btw.
Rarely has a guild of say 100 members acutally more than 20/25 players on line at once.
So on a full server there could be easely 50 guilds with each 50 members and not even reaching 70% capacity of that server.
People - even in other games - the number of people at the same time on line is NOT that big. Like I said 3200 was the maximum for Wow and they had SEPERATE servers for the BG's, not even taxing the main server you level and quest in.
And in WAR....
- The scenario server is separate
- One Tier in one pairing in WAR is separate hardware-wise (just like the WoW world today is 3 servers - Kalimdor, Easter Kingdoms and Outland)
- A Full server is only labeled Full when people are online - not based on number of accounts created on the server.
So it is basically the same in terms of people capacity etc. I am sure that Mythic right now is gathering all the date to tweak the final numbers but on a full/full server there is alot of action - apart from the noted drawback that Open RvR in T1 to T3 is not rewarding enough from an EXP ptw.
And btw - I was wrong with one number the total number of servers at release since I forgot the german, italian and spanish ones. In total the release server list was 109 servers with 500,000 accounts or 4,5K accounts per server on average. Now - the cap is much larger than the average since we have low/low servers at prime time and full/full servers at prime time (. The conclusion is still the same that the account per server and players per server at prime-time is very close to the WoW servers (somewhere in the high 2000's in terms of player online at prime on full servers - which is...once again, very close to the 3200 in WoW).
Very interesting info.
Just proves what I said above: on pre launch drastically lowering the server caps to improve the laggy feeling in the spell casts and off beat timings.
FunCom did it with lowering the number of players in one instance with a so called "miracle" patch 3 days before launch. The AoC client was way too demanding for the hardware to get things going with too much players on screen at once, hence they lowerd the instances to 40/50 players.
Mythic could have lowered the server caps in an attempt to streamline the much heard lag feeling on spell casts.
What I said doesn't prove that. It proves its a lot more then what you say. Our guild is not 1/20th of a server.
In a guild the same number of % counts btw.
Rarely has a guild of say 100 members acutally more than 20/25 players on line at once.
So on a full server there could be easely 50 guilds with each 50 members and not even reaching 70% capacity of that server.
People - even in other games - the number of people at the same time on line is NOT that big. Like I said 3200 was the maximum for Wow and they had SEPERATE servers for the BG's, not even taxing the main server you level and quest in.
These numbers were last taken Sept 25 before Mythic Changed their search.
http://www.tillberg.us/warpop
Azazel - Order: 2074, Destruction: 2334, Ratio = 1:1.1
Now I'm using my server as an example, just because i have a decent Feel for it.
500 is far to low, just on that feeling.
I've encountered Keep sieges with at least 30 Destruction at any one time. So considering Order matches that about evenly... you have at least 30 on destro, 30 on order. ( disorganization is a killer)
60 in that tier zone * 4 = 240.
Now at this point in the game there are people questing in all 3 tiers, i've been swapping between them, and Altdorf (which isn't included in my numbers)
so 240 * 3 would place you at about 720 at minimum just from those numbers.
30 even feels too low considering scenario queues never seem long, and I can still find Multiple active PQ's across the various chapters in the tier. Certainly only one PQ is actively done in each chapter, but I'm behind and can skip between ch 6 and 9 in the Empire area and find at least 10 people on the popular PQ.
So, if my 30 from before is just for that RvR area... keep sieging... capture point. say perhaps you can add another 40 for ch 6, 7, 8, 9... just for those PQ's.
Then you give, say another 4... 3... people, per chapter area, just doing regular quests....
that would be another 12.
30 Open RvR.
40 PQ's in one tier
12 Doing random stuff...
Even the number doing Random stuff seems low... but i'll go with it... mainly because on Order side, you'd think with 30 people you might be able to do stuff... disorganization : /
82 people in one tier doing their thing. This doesn't include those that are in a scenario at any one time. Since my guild has been involved with multiple scenarios in one tier... at least 3 different ones going on at once. one can assume there is at least 36 per side doing these... but no clue on how many are going at once.
82 * 4 tiers = 328
328 * 3 zones for the 3 zones...
984 on one side
984 * 2 for Destro and Order
1868 for a full server.
Now compare that to the 500, based on my estimations and multiplication.
Sure... i'm more than likely off... but by 1300?
Unlikely. Even if I was off by 800, it would be acceptable to know that there are 1000 people for server cap.
Which according to those Warpop numbers would be about accurate if everyone had just one more alt. Some have 3 to 4, but players like myself who only have 1 character... period... help reduce that.
Now seeing that number I get a bit concerned... mainly because I have not had too much experience with Tier 4 myself.
Still... 500 just doesn't seem right. 1000, i'm willing to give... but it still feels like somewhere between 1000 and my 1864.
When I get to max level and can traverse the tiers with ease, I will consider revising this a bit more. The cross zone scenario queuing helped spread people out.
P.S.
On launch, the caps were drastically lowered, to more than likely that 500 cap you use, in order to force people to spread out.
My CE box says ##### / 60,000 if i remember right... so I'd like to know what the actual cap was on each of the servers for those CE's that were sold.
2 servers for 1000 people, 60 servers needed for the full 60,000 CE's
I don't remember there being that many servers... so likely the cap was higher. 500 per side? 1000 per server... if that 60,000 CE's was EU and NA... 30 servers open in NA at launch?
Still something doesn't seem right.
Very interesting info.
Just proves what I said above: on pre launch drastically lowering the server caps to improve the laggy feeling in the spell casts and off beat timings.
FunCom did it with lowering the number of players in one instance with a so called "miracle" patch 3 days before launch. The AoC client was way too demanding for the hardware to get things going with too much players on screen at once, hence they lowerd the instances to 40/50 players.
Mythic could have lowered the server caps in an attempt to streamline the much heard lag feeling on spell casts.
What I said doesn't prove that. It proves its a lot more then what you say. Our guild is not 1/20th of a server.
In a guild the same number of % counts btw.
Rarely has a guild of say 100 members acutally more than 20/25 players on line at once.
So on a full server there could be easely 50 guilds with each 50 members and not even reaching 70% capacity of that server.
People - even in other games - the number of people at the same time on line is NOT that big. Like I said 3200 was the maximum for Wow and they had SEPERATE servers for the BG's, not even taxing the main server you level and quest in.
These numbers were last taken Sept 25 before Mythic Changed their search.
http://www.tillberg.us/warpop
Azazel - Order: 2074, Destruction: 2334, Ratio = 1:1.1
Now I'm using my server as an example, just because i have a decent Feel to it.
500 is far to low, just on that feeling.
I've encountered Keep sieges with at least 30 Destruction at any one time. So considering Order matches that about evenly... you have at least 30 on destro, 30 on order.
60 in that tier zone * 4 = 240.
Now at this point in the game there are people questing in all 3 tiers, i've been swapping be tween them, and Altdorf (which isn't included in my numbers)
so 240 * 3 would place you at about 720 at minimum just from those numbers.
30 even feels too low considering server queues never seem long, and I can still find Multiple active PQ's across the various chapters in the tier. Certainly only one PQ is actively done in each chapter, but I'm behind and can skip between ch 6 and 9 in the Empire area and find at least 10 people on the popular PQ.
So, if my 30 from before is just for that RvR area... keep sieging. say perhaps you can add another 40 for ch 6, 7, 8, 9... just for those PQ's.
Then you give, say another 4... 3... people, per chapter area, just doing regular quests....
that would be another 12.
30 Open RvR.
40 PQ's in one tier
12 Doing random stuff...
Even the number doing Random stuff seems low... but i'll go with it... mainly because on Order side, you'd think with 30 people you might be able to do stuff... disorganization : /
82 people in one tier doing their thing. This doesn't include those that are in a scenario at any one time. Since my guild has been involved with multiple scenarios in one tier... at least 3 different ones going on at once. one can assume there is at least 36 per side doing these... but no clue on how many are going at once.
82 * 4 tiers = 328
328 * 3 zones for the 3 zones...
984 on one side
984 * 2 for Desto and Order
1868 for a full server.
Now compare that to the 500, based on my estimations and multiplication.
Sure... i'm more than likely off... but by 1300?
Unlikely. Even if I was off by 800, it would be acceptable to know that there are 1000 people per server cap.
Which according to those Warpop numbers would be about accurate if everyone had just one more alt. Some have 3 to 4, but players like myself who only have 1 character... period... help reduce that.
Now seeing that number I get a bit concerned... mainly because I have not had too much experience with Tier 4 myself.
Still... 500 just doesn't seem right. 1000, i'm willing to give... but it still feels like somewhere between 1000 and my 1864.
When I get to max level and can traverse the tiers with ease, I will consider revising this a bit more.
500 + 500 = how many ? 1000.
I never said 500 people on one server. I said 500/500 cap. So how can you come up with a difference of 1300?
You just multiply the Tiers with the same factor. Just as if there are exactly the same number of people in each Tier.
Math is much simpler: 63 EU servers for the EU market which is 200-250 K players with a 25% number on line in prime time and you arrive at around 1K per server.
LOTRO = 11 servers, Wow with 2M + subs= 247 servers. WAR with 200-250 K subs= 63 servers.
That shows more than enough the War servers are too low capped. Hence empty worlds to do all the content (RvR/PQ/ over the whole world).
If you don't get it now, you'll never will.
...Tin-foil hats!!! ...get your Tin-foil hats here!!
...Tee-shirts! ...get your "Opinion" Tee-shirts here!
Which, by the end of this week people will be pushing through tier 4 with more force.
Others will be rolling alts, healers, to try and catch up... some of those in upper tiers are helping those alts.
it's hectic.
Now with those cross-zone queuing scenarios people are not trying to stay in one area and are running through other zones.
Like I said, a hard cap of 500 per side doesn't feel right. 800-1000 per side would explain a few things and show what was going on in a decent fashion.
Very interesting info.
Just proves what I said above: on pre launch drastically lowering the server caps to improve the laggy feeling in the spell casts and off beat timings.
FunCom did it with lowering the number of players in one instance with a so called "miracle" patch 3 days before launch. The AoC client was way too demanding for the hardware to get things going with too much players on screen at once, hence they lowerd the instances to 40/50 players.
Mythic could have lowered the server caps in an attempt to streamline the much heard lag feeling on spell casts.
What I said doesn't prove that. It proves its a lot more then what you say. Our guild is not 1/20th of a server.
In a guild the same number of % counts btw.
Rarely has a guild of say 100 members acutally more than 20/25 players on line at once.
So on a full server there could be easely 50 guilds with each 50 members and not even reaching 70% capacity of that server.
People - even in other games - the number of people at the same time on line is NOT that big. Like I said 3200 was the maximum for Wow and they had SEPERATE servers for the BG's, not even taxing the main server you level and quest in.
These numbers were last taken Sept 25 before Mythic Changed their search.
http://www.tillberg.us/warpop
Azazel - Order: 2074, Destruction: 2334, Ratio = 1:1.1
Now I'm using my server as an example, just because i have a decent Feel to it.
500 is far to low, just on that feeling.
I've encountered Keep sieges with at least 30 Destruction at any one time. So considering Order matches that about evenly... you have at least 30 on destro, 30 on order.
60 in that tier zone * 4 = 240.
Now at this point in the game there are people questing in all 3 tiers, i've been swapping be tween them, and Altdorf (which isn't included in my numbers)
so 240 * 3 would place you at about 720 at minimum just from those numbers.
30 even feels too low considering server queues never seem long, and I can still find Multiple active PQ's across the various chapters in the tier. Certainly only one PQ is actively done in each chapter, but I'm behind and can skip between ch 6 and 9 in the Empire area and find at least 10 people on the popular PQ.
So, if my 30 from before is just for that RvR area... keep sieging. say perhaps you can add another 40 for ch 6, 7, 8, 9... just for those PQ's.
Then you give, say another 4... 3... people, per chapter area, just doing regular quests....
that would be another 12.
30 Open RvR.
40 PQ's in one tier
12 Doing random stuff...
Even the number doing Random stuff seems low... but i'll go with it... mainly because on Order side, you'd think with 30 people you might be able to do stuff... disorganization : /
82 people in one tier doing their thing. This doesn't include those that are in a scenario at any one time. Since my guild has been involved with multiple scenarios in one tier... at least 3 different ones going on at once. one can assume there is at least 36 per side doing these... but no clue on how many are going at once.
82 * 4 tiers = 328
328 * 3 zones for the 3 zones...
984 on one side
984 * 2 for Desto and Order
1868 for a full server.
Now compare that to the 500, based on my estimations and multiplication.
Sure... i'm more than likely off... but by 1300?
Unlikely. Even if I was off by 800, it would be acceptable to know that there are 1000 people per server cap.
Which according to those Warpop numbers would be about accurate if everyone had just one more alt. Some have 3 to 4, but players like myself who only have 1 character... period... help reduce that.
Now seeing that number I get a bit concerned... mainly because I have not had too much experience with Tier 4 myself.
Still... 500 just doesn't seem right. 1000, i'm willing to give... but it still feels like somewhere between 1000 and my 1864.
When I get to max level and can traverse the tiers with ease, I will consider revising this a bit more.
500 + 500 = how many ? 1000.
I never said 500 people on one server. I said 500/500 cap. So how can you come up with a difference of 1300?
You just multiply the Tiers with the same factor. Just as if there are exactly the same number of people in each Tier.
Math is much simpler: 63 EU servers for the EU market which is 200-250 K players with a 25% number on line in prime time and you arrive at around 1K per server.
LOTRO = 11 servers, Wow with 2M + subs= 247 servers. WAR with 200-250 K subs= 63 servers.
That shows more than enough the War servers are too low capped. Hence empty worlds to do all the content (RvR/PQ/ over the whole world).
If you don't get it now, you'll never will.
You re the one not getting it, there is no way it s 500/500. As i said above read it again, that is just a small portion of areas. Not including starter, scenarios, main city etc etc. Please stop spouting off stuff you have no clue about.
I agree with this, and I think it gets to the heart of the matter. To quote what Jeff Hickman said about PQs in that interview:
“We never actually intended for PQs to be hugely populated and overrun with people. We actually intended them to be destination points as much as places you can wander into. It’s like: you walk into a chapter. There are three PQs. In general, during peak play times, you go into a chapter, there’s going to be people in one of those PQs.”
But then he goes on to say:
"I just think that there are a lot of different ways to experience PQs. It’s like; Why did we make the first stage of PQs so easy? Why did we do that? Because we intended it to be there for solo players. We never intended the solo player to be able to go all the way though from stage one to stage three in a PQ. The loot chest at the end of the PQ is a special reward. The standard reward is your influence reward.”
So, regardless of the intention, to me this is just confusing to the player. In the first round of an instance, you don't need a group, but in the later round you do. It is a simple concept, yes. But in my mind it confuses the objective, and to me this is one of the primary reasons why I find PQs dead. It just goes back to designer intention and player perception. I would say that as a designer, more thought should go into players perception. And its all fine when he says that "no one has ever tried this before. Its a great experiement." That's fine, but lets not pull a Neo on something that is fundamental to your game by saying "you know why this will work? because its never been tried before." That's kind of a lame excuse for something which I feel isn't working out too well. If PQs are fundamental to community play, then design them to be more conducive socially.
So, again, I'm confused by the whole concept of what the PQ is supposed to be. Is it an area where only coordinated teamplay can achieve the objective, or is it a destination point that you simply "wander into" and maybe there will be enough people to meet the objective. To me, the design contradicts itself and we are seeing its effects. Low to no-pop in the PQs, speaking from my experience on my server.
edited for sp