I definitely agree there is no rule that says you have to partake in whatever discussion a particular thread has spawned. But, I hate to say this, but you started it ... by letting the others who posted on this thread know that you were purposefully ignoring their posts. That's a gauntlet you threw down (knowingly or unknowingly) and I called you on it. Sorry if that ruffled your feathers, but I'm sure you learned from the experience. =P
Simply put, I've found that in situations such as these, if I don't state a reason for not engaging in the current conversation, I'm often quoted and subsequently involved in the said discussion regardless of my initial intent, and so I included my explanation, in which I stated that I was consciously not involving myself in the current conversation, for reasons which I did not elaborate upon at that point in order to avoid "ruffling" someone's feathers, as you put it. (Remember, I said "often" and not "always" since some people have difficulty when attempting to discern the difference.)
Yet you chose to make your own inferences (whether they were incorrect or not is irrelevant given the brevity and ambiguity of my original post) based upon my brief statement, and, consequentially, engendered this entirely off-topic conversation.
The only thing I "learned" from this experience is that I should truly take the time to write up the litany of disclaimers that I intend to include in my signature one of these days so that I don't have to write a dissertation-length post (yes, that is hyperbole, so no need to highlight that fact) in order to avert having this type of event repeat itself. Until then, I fully expect this issue to occur each time a comment of mine is taken out of context; that is, in this case I'm referencing the comment in which I concluded the post with an emoticon.
Perhaps you should learn to exercise more caution when drawing conclusions based upon a relatively innocuous comment in the future.
In addition, this is my final comment regarding this matter as I think I've made my point quite lucid, regardless of how it's perceived by anyone else. (I'd rather not be responsible for derailing this thread any further.)
I definitely agree there is no rule that says you have to partake in whatever discussion a particular thread has spawned. But, I hate to say this, but you started it ... by letting the others who posted on this thread know that you were purposefully ignoring their posts. That's a gauntlet you threw down (knowingly or unknowingly) and I called you on it. Sorry if that ruffled your feathers, but I'm sure you learned from the experience. =P
Simply put, I've found that in situations such as these, if I don't state a reason for not engaging in the current conversation, I'm often quoted and subsequently involved in the said discussion regardless of my initial intent, and so I included my explanation, in which I stated that I was consciously not involving myself in the current conversation, for reasons which I did not elaborate upon at that point in order to avoid "ruffling" someone's feathers, as you put it. (Remember, I said "often" and not "always" since some people have difficulty when attempting to discern the difference.)
Yet you chose to make your own inferences (whether they were incorrect or not is irrelevant given the brevity and ambiguity of my original post) based upon my brief statement, and, consequentially, engendered this entirely off-topic conversation.
The only thing I "learned" from this experience is that I should truly take the time to write up the litany of disclaimers that I intend to include in my signature one of these days so that I don't have to write a dissertation-length post (yes, that is hyperbole, so no need to highlight that fact) in order to avert having this type of event repeat itself. Until then, I fully expect this issue to occur each time a comment of mine is taken out of context; that is, in this case I'm referencing the comment in which I concluded the post with an emoticon.
Perhaps you should learn to exercise more caution when drawing conclusions based upon a relatively innocuous comment in the future.
In addition, this is my final comment regarding this matter as I think I've made my point quite lucid, regardless of how it's perceived by anyone else. (I'd rather not be responsible for derailing this thread any further.)
Fair enough. And if you truly were trying to avoid ruffling feathers, I apologize. I honestly thought you were trying to do the opposite ,in which my opinion was made more concrete when I read your reply to my 'ignorance is bliss' comment (which I admit may have been uncalled for [mods - please don't give me another warning for say 'it may have been uncalled for' again]).
3000 less Officers in just 30 days is HUGE mate. We're only 1k off the game low and GCW is easier than EVER to get and maintain (decay is lower now).
Allowing people to play for free always results in a spike, overall there is a net gain in officers from the free trial and battlefields.
I guess I just don't see the "net gain" like you do. Any gain should be much more sustainable...not just a simple 30-day spike from free players. The tremendous drop indicates to me that the BF's failed to hold any interest like they were supposed to do.
And tbh, it's too late now. Hanse missed his chance to fix them. The interest they once had will never be there again...this is another prime example of how SoE **edit**ed up and didn't fix problems quick enough. They continually fail to capitalize on player interest.
3000 less Officers in just 30 days is HUGE mate. We're only 1k off the game low and GCW is easier than EVER to get and maintain (decay is lower now).
Allowing people to play for free always results in a spike, overall there is a net gain in officers from the free trial and battlefields.
So 3000 LESS Officers is a Net gain how?
I suspect Badger is referring to officers a year ago to officers now being a net gain.
No matter what Badger seem to be ignoring/overlooking some important aspects in his assessment.
The spike in total officers directly relates to the patch that made obtaining officer status dramatically easier, which explains the immediate spike in total officers.
The patch that made obtaining officer easier was also the patch that had new PvP content so it was heavily played by the population which also inflated the results.
He has often said you cannot use the GCD stats to gauge population. That is until it could be twisted into showing population growth which somehow makes it a valid tool now.
Either way the decline means something is going wrong with the game. There are only two explanations I can think of. The first is that many of the officer accounts are no longer active and thus not counted. Second is that players have stopped engaging in the new content that made obtaining officer so much easier.
Either people are leaving, people are not enjoying the new content or a mix of both?
3000 less Officers in just 30 days is HUGE mate. We're only 1k off the game low and GCW is easier than EVER to get and maintain (decay is lower now).
Allowing people to play for free always results in a spike, overall there is a net gain in officers from the free trial and battlefields.
So 3000 LESS Officers is a Net gain how?
I suspect Badger is referring to officers a year ago to officers now being a net gain.
No matter what Badger seem to be ignoring/overlooking some important aspects in his assessment.
The spike in total officers directly relates to the patch that made obtaining officer status dramatically easier, which explains the immediate spike in total officers.
The patch that made obtaining officer easier was also the patch that had new PvP content so it was heavily played by the population which also inflated the results.
He has often said you cannot use the GCD stats to gauge population. That is until it could be twisted into showing population growth which somehow makes it a valid tool now.
Either way the decline means something is going wrong with the game. There are only two explanations I can think of. The first is that many of the officer accounts are no longer active and thus not counted. Second is that players have stopped engaging in the new content that made obtaining officer so much easier.
Either people are leaving, people are not enjoying the new content or a mix of both?
Either people are leaving, people are not enjoying the new content or a mix of both?
The novelty of battlefields has worn off, that's all really. I don't have any characters listed on the GCW stats myself, they all decayed below Lieutenant rank because I've been busy with crafting recently.
I'm not sure where Tux gets a drop of 3000 officers from, we're currently +1000 officers from before Chapter 10 having almost equalled the highest number of total officers ever when the GCW system was completely new two years ago.
I don't tend to use GCW stats alone to gauge game population, even when I correlate them with player city stats, I still can't get a accurate picture.
My best guess would be about 100-150k subs, but that's no more than an educated guess based on the information I collect. If you throw in the "shocking" sales being recorded by the Denver studio for the TCG then financially SWG seems to be doing rather well.
Either people are leaving, people are not enjoying the new content or a mix of both?
The novelty of battlefields has worn off, that's all really. I don't have any characters listed on the GCW stats myself, they all decayed below Lieutenant rank because I've been busy with crafting recently.
I'm not sure where Tux gets a drop of 3000 officers from, we're currently +1000 officers from before Chapter 10 having almost equalled the highest number of total officers ever when the GCW system was completely new two years ago.
I don't tend to use GCW stats alone to gauge game population, even when I correlate them with player city stats, I still can't get a accurate picture.
My best guess would be about 100-150k subs, but that's no more than an educated guess based on the information I collect. If you throw in the "shocking" sales being recorded by the Denver studio for the TCG then financially SWG seems to be doing rather well.
Even if your stats were accurate Badger we need to look at the reasoning for the NGE in the first place. Remember when they said they needed to appeal to a much larger player base? Does 100-150K really represent the masses this justification was made for?
Obviously not, and that's only one reason why people should be prepared for the worst in the next year or so. If SWG closes next year there certainly won't be a lack of evidence between now and then.
Either people are leaving, people are not enjoying the new content or a mix of both?
The novelty of battlefields has worn off, that's all really. I don't have any characters listed on the GCW stats myself, they all decayed below Lieutenant rank because I've been busy with crafting recently.
I'm not sure where Tux gets a drop of 3000 officers from, we're currently +1000 officers from before Chapter 10 having almost equalled the highest number of total officers ever when the GCW system was completely new two years ago.
I don't tend to use GCW stats alone to gauge game population, even when I correlate them with player city stats, I still can't get a accurate picture.
My best guess would be about 100-150k subs, but that's no more than an educated guess based on the information I collect. If you throw in the "shocking" sales being recorded by the Denver studio for the TCG then financially SWG seems to be doing rather well.
100-150k subscribers would make for at least 10-15 of the servers being FULL. Not light or medium, but full. That is the common accepted measurement of subscriber to server ratio. Considering how the swg servers are brought to their knees with any sizable popluation running around I think it is obvious that is not the case here. 150k thousands subscribers is enough to give all 25 servers very decent populations. All of them. That would put on average close to 1,200 players online during peek hours on each server. How many do you think starsider has?
Also if swg had 150k players, why has there not been a paid expansion in over 4 years? Games of this size get expansions and swg has not had one since the nge took effect. Why?
If swg had the population you think it would be doing as well as EQ/EQ2 and I think it is obvious that this game does not have that type of support.
Number of cities does not equate to more players. It just means more cities. That is like saying there are more items on vendors so there must be a subscriber increase. When people move from their old server to a new one it makes logical sense that they would try to remake their old city in some fashion.
Your comparison of the number of officers years ago to now is flawed as I described above. There are more officers now, because soe made it very easy to obtain officer rank, especially compared to how it was years ago. There is almost no effort to gain officer rank in comparison. Which still does not address Tux point of there being 3,000 less officers now than there where shortly after the changes to make getting officer easier. I'm not sure if you really don't understand what tux said or are using selective hearing so you can ignore the issue.
Either people are leaving, people are not enjoying the new content or a mix of both?
The novelty of battlefields has worn off, that's all really. I don't have any characters listed on the GCW stats myself, they all decayed below Lieutenant rank because I've been busy with crafting recently.
I'm not sure where Tux gets a drop of 3000 officers from, we're currently +1000 officers from before Chapter 10 having almost equalled the highest number of total officers ever when the GCW system was completely new two years ago.
I don't tend to use GCW stats alone to gauge game population, even when I correlate them with player city stats, I still can't get a accurate picture.
My best guess would be about 100-150k subs, but that's no more than an educated guess based on the information I collect. If you throw in the "shocking" sales being recorded by the Denver studio for the TCG then financially SWG seems to be doing rather well.
100-150k subscribers would make for at least 10-15 of the servers being FULL. Not light or medium, but full. That is the common accepted measurement of subscriber to server ratio. Considering how the swg servers are brought to their knees with any sizable popluation running around I think it is obvious that is not the case here. 150k thousands subscribers is enough to give all 25 servers very decent populations. All of them. That would put on average close to 1,200 players online during peek hours on each server. How many do you think starsider has?
Also if swg had 150k players, why has there not been a paid expansion in over 4 years? Games of this size get expansions and swg has not had one since the nge took effect. Why?
If swg had the population you think it would be doing as well as EQ/EQ2 and I think it is obvious that this game does not have that type of support.
Number of cities does not equate to more players. It just means more cities. That is like saying there are more items on vendors so there must be a subscriber increase. When people move from their old server to a new one it makes logical sense that they would try to remake their old city in some fashion.
Your comparison of the number of officers years ago to now is flawed as I described above. There are more officers now, because soe made it very easy to obtain officer rank, especially compared to how it was years ago. There is almost no effort to gain officer rank in comparison. Which still does not address Tux point of there being 3,000 less officers now than there where shortly after the changes to make getting officer easier. I'm not sure if you really don't understand what tux said or are using selective hearing so you can ignore the issue.
In the end $OE will repay them as they have done us.
Originally posted by BadgerSmaker I'm not sure where Tux gets a drop of 3000 officers from, we're currently +1000 officers from before Chapter 10 having almost equalled the highest number of total officers ever when the GCW system was completely new two years ago.
I used your chart Badger:
Looking at your chart, you can clearly see the drastic decline last month...3000 may be high, but 2500 isn't.
This current decline took place after a 3-month development cycle for "battle fields" - an Update directly aimed at increasing interest in GCW/PvP...it was even called a "PvP Update". But the Battle Fields were something the community didn't ask for, PvPers didn't want and the Developers (Hanse) did sloppily.
What we can see from the chart is that there was an initial spike to Officer numbers (30-day vets or real interest?)...which would indicate the update was a "success"?! What follows though is what has to be troubling...
In just 30-days following that spike from GU10, they lost 2500 Officers. The last time we had a drop of 2500 Officers was between Sept 2007 and April 2008...an 8-month span. And that drop can be directly attributed to the introduction of Heroics. What do you attribute this decline to?
Given that GU10 made GCW points easier to gain than ever and decreased decay by 20%, I don't think you'll see that "net gain" last too long.
Originally posted by BadgerSmaker My best guess would be about 100-150k subs, but that's no more than an educated guess based on the information I collect. If you throw in the "shocking" sales being recorded by the Denver studio for the TCG then financially SWG seems to be doing rather well.
Again, let me use your own chart to argue your numbers:
Add those all up Badger. I added all but TCP and came up with 46,590 "residents". Since each player can have a minimum of 2 toons per account, lets cut that number in half - we come up with 23,295...a FAR cry from 100-150k.
If you want to argue "but people don't always declare" or "some people like to live as nomads", I'll argue that the vast majority DO live in a city! Add to that multiple accounts, 3 toons per account, multiple toons on different servers and I think we can safely guess a TRUE number to be around 20k MAX! And there's also the issue of "protected citizens"...I think a mayor can protect up to 20% of his citizens to maintain rank. That would mean our starting number of 46,590 could be too high by up to 20% (9,318 people).
Looking at your numbers Badger, I come up with a helluva lot less than you do...can you please explain how you came to your conclusion of 100-150k???
I'm not sure if you really don't understand what tux said or are using selective hearing so you can ignore the issue.
Tux's comment is incorrect. I've looked over my spreadsheet of GCW numbers over the last four years three times and have no idea what he is referring to.
Tux, if you need clarification on this, you can always hop onto the Stratics IRC.
I'm not sure if you really don't understand what tux said or are using selective hearing so you can ignore the issue.
Tux's comment is incorrect. I've looked over my spreadsheet of GCW numbers over the last four years three times and have no idea what he is referring to.
Tux, if you need clarification on this, you can always hop onto the Stratics IRC.
Hopefully I clarified it for you above?! And thanks for the offer (IRC). I'll take you up on that May not get to it today, but I'll hop on soon for sure.
Hopefully I clarified it for you above?! And thanks for the offer (IRC). I'll take you up on that May not get to it today, but I'll hop on soon for sure.
The total number of MINIMUM players declared in a city to lead to the city ranks on that server is 50,265. If you have a city with 450 declared citizens, I can only count 40 of them with these stats.
That's why my guess is much higher than yours, I know that there aren't al that many rank 5 cities with exactly 40 citizens declared.
Hopefully I clarified it for you above?! And thanks for the offer (IRC). I'll take you up on that May not get to it today, but I'll hop on soon for sure.
The total number of MINIMUM players declared in a city to lead to the city ranks on that server is 50,265. If you have a city with 450 declared citizens, I can only count 40 of them with these stats.
That's why my guess is much higher than yours, I know that there aren't al that many rank 5 cities with exactly 40 citizens declared.
Look forward to chatting to you soon mate.
That should be "Characters", since everyone gets two per account on up to four servers (eight total across all servers).
Comments
Simply put, I've found that in situations such as these, if I don't state a reason for not engaging in the current conversation, I'm often quoted and subsequently involved in the said discussion regardless of my initial intent, and so I included my explanation, in which I stated that I was consciously not involving myself in the current conversation, for reasons which I did not elaborate upon at that point in order to avoid "ruffling" someone's feathers, as you put it. (Remember, I said "often" and not "always" since some people have difficulty when attempting to discern the difference.)
Yet you chose to make your own inferences (whether they were incorrect or not is irrelevant given the brevity and ambiguity of my original post) based upon my brief statement, and, consequentially, engendered this entirely off-topic conversation.
The only thing I "learned" from this experience is that I should truly take the time to write up the litany of disclaimers that I intend to include in my signature one of these days so that I don't have to write a dissertation-length post (yes, that is hyperbole, so no need to highlight that fact) in order to avert having this type of event repeat itself. Until then, I fully expect this issue to occur each time a comment of mine is taken out of context; that is, in this case I'm referencing the comment in which I concluded the post with an emoticon.
Perhaps you should learn to exercise more caution when drawing conclusions based upon a relatively innocuous comment in the future.
In addition, this is my final comment regarding this matter as I think I've made my point quite lucid, regardless of how it's perceived by anyone else. (I'd rather not be responsible for derailing this thread any further.)
Allowing people to play for free always results in a spike, overall there is a net gain in officers from the free trial and battlefields.
Allowing people to play for free always results in a spike, overall there is a net gain in officers from the free trial and battlefields.
So 3000 LESS Officers is a Net gain how?
Simply put, I've found that in situations such as these, if I don't state a reason for not engaging in the current conversation, I'm often quoted and subsequently involved in the said discussion regardless of my initial intent, and so I included my explanation, in which I stated that I was consciously not involving myself in the current conversation, for reasons which I did not elaborate upon at that point in order to avoid "ruffling" someone's feathers, as you put it. (Remember, I said "often" and not "always" since some people have difficulty when attempting to discern the difference.)
Yet you chose to make your own inferences (whether they were incorrect or not is irrelevant given the brevity and ambiguity of my original post) based upon my brief statement, and, consequentially, engendered this entirely off-topic conversation.
The only thing I "learned" from this experience is that I should truly take the time to write up the litany of disclaimers that I intend to include in my signature one of these days so that I don't have to write a dissertation-length post (yes, that is hyperbole, so no need to highlight that fact) in order to avert having this type of event repeat itself. Until then, I fully expect this issue to occur each time a comment of mine is taken out of context; that is, in this case I'm referencing the comment in which I concluded the post with an emoticon.
Perhaps you should learn to exercise more caution when drawing conclusions based upon a relatively innocuous comment in the future.
In addition, this is my final comment regarding this matter as I think I've made my point quite lucid, regardless of how it's perceived by anyone else. (I'd rather not be responsible for derailing this thread any further.)
Fair enough. And if you truly were trying to avoid ruffling feathers, I apologize. I honestly thought you were trying to do the opposite ,in which my opinion was made more concrete when I read your reply to my 'ignorance is bliss' comment (which I admit may have been uncalled for [mods - please don't give me another warning for say 'it may have been uncalled for' again]).
Peace out.
We now return to our original thread...
Allowing people to play for free always results in a spike, overall there is a net gain in officers from the free trial and battlefields.
I guess I just don't see the "net gain" like you do. Any gain should be much more sustainable...not just a simple 30-day spike from free players. The tremendous drop indicates to me that the BF's failed to hold any interest like they were supposed to do.
And tbh, it's too late now. Hanse missed his chance to fix them. The interest they once had will never be there again...this is another prime example of how SoE **edit**ed up and didn't fix problems quick enough. They continually fail to capitalize on player interest.
Allowing people to play for free always results in a spike, overall there is a net gain in officers from the free trial and battlefields.
So 3000 LESS Officers is a Net gain how?
I suspect Badger is referring to officers a year ago to officers now being a net gain.
No matter what Badger seem to be ignoring/overlooking some important aspects in his assessment.
Either way the decline means something is going wrong with the game. There are only two explanations I can think of. The first is that many of the officer accounts are no longer active and thus not counted. Second is that players have stopped engaging in the new content that made obtaining officer so much easier.
Either people are leaving, people are not enjoying the new content or a mix of both?
Allowing people to play for free always results in a spike, overall there is a net gain in officers from the free trial and battlefields.
So 3000 LESS Officers is a Net gain how?
I suspect Badger is referring to officers a year ago to officers now being a net gain.
No matter what Badger seem to be ignoring/overlooking some important aspects in his assessment.
Either way the decline means something is going wrong with the game. There are only two explanations I can think of. The first is that many of the officer accounts are no longer active and thus not counted. Second is that players have stopped engaging in the new content that made obtaining officer so much easier.
Either people are leaving, people are not enjoying the new content or a mix of both?
some good observations here.
The novelty of battlefields has worn off, that's all really. I don't have any characters listed on the GCW stats myself, they all decayed below Lieutenant rank because I've been busy with crafting recently.
I'm not sure where Tux gets a drop of 3000 officers from, we're currently +1000 officers from before Chapter 10 having almost equalled the highest number of total officers ever when the GCW system was completely new two years ago.
I don't tend to use GCW stats alone to gauge game population, even when I correlate them with player city stats, I still can't get a accurate picture.
My best guess would be about 100-150k subs, but that's no more than an educated guess based on the information I collect. If you throw in the "shocking" sales being recorded by the Denver studio for the TCG then financially SWG seems to be doing rather well.
The novelty of battlefields has worn off, that's all really. I don't have any characters listed on the GCW stats myself, they all decayed below Lieutenant rank because I've been busy with crafting recently.
I'm not sure where Tux gets a drop of 3000 officers from, we're currently +1000 officers from before Chapter 10 having almost equalled the highest number of total officers ever when the GCW system was completely new two years ago.
I don't tend to use GCW stats alone to gauge game population, even when I correlate them with player city stats, I still can't get a accurate picture.
My best guess would be about 100-150k subs, but that's no more than an educated guess based on the information I collect. If you throw in the "shocking" sales being recorded by the Denver studio for the TCG then financially SWG seems to be doing rather well.
Even if your stats were accurate Badger we need to look at the reasoning for the NGE in the first place. Remember when they said they needed to appeal to a much larger player base? Does 100-150K really represent the masses this justification was made for?
Obviously not, and that's only one reason why people should be prepared for the worst in the next year or so. If SWG closes next year there certainly won't be a lack of evidence between now and then.
The novelty of battlefields has worn off, that's all really. I don't have any characters listed on the GCW stats myself, they all decayed below Lieutenant rank because I've been busy with crafting recently.
I'm not sure where Tux gets a drop of 3000 officers from, we're currently +1000 officers from before Chapter 10 having almost equalled the highest number of total officers ever when the GCW system was completely new two years ago.
I don't tend to use GCW stats alone to gauge game population, even when I correlate them with player city stats, I still can't get a accurate picture.
My best guess would be about 100-150k subs, but that's no more than an educated guess based on the information I collect. If you throw in the "shocking" sales being recorded by the Denver studio for the TCG then financially SWG seems to be doing rather well.
100-150k subscribers would make for at least 10-15 of the servers being FULL. Not light or medium, but full. That is the common accepted measurement of subscriber to server ratio. Considering how the swg servers are brought to their knees with any sizable popluation running around I think it is obvious that is not the case here. 150k thousands subscribers is enough to give all 25 servers very decent populations. All of them. That would put on average close to 1,200 players online during peek hours on each server. How many do you think starsider has?
Also if swg had 150k players, why has there not been a paid expansion in over 4 years? Games of this size get expansions and swg has not had one since the nge took effect. Why?
If swg had the population you think it would be doing as well as EQ/EQ2 and I think it is obvious that this game does not have that type of support.
Number of cities does not equate to more players. It just means more cities. That is like saying there are more items on vendors so there must be a subscriber increase. When people move from their old server to a new one it makes logical sense that they would try to remake their old city in some fashion.
Your comparison of the number of officers years ago to now is flawed as I described above. There are more officers now, because soe made it very easy to obtain officer rank, especially compared to how it was years ago. There is almost no effort to gain officer rank in comparison. Which still does not address Tux point of there being 3,000 less officers now than there where shortly after the changes to make getting officer easier. I'm not sure if you really don't understand what tux said or are using selective hearing so you can ignore the issue.
The novelty of battlefields has worn off, that's all really. I don't have any characters listed on the GCW stats myself, they all decayed below Lieutenant rank because I've been busy with crafting recently.
I'm not sure where Tux gets a drop of 3000 officers from, we're currently +1000 officers from before Chapter 10 having almost equalled the highest number of total officers ever when the GCW system was completely new two years ago.
I don't tend to use GCW stats alone to gauge game population, even when I correlate them with player city stats, I still can't get a accurate picture.
My best guess would be about 100-150k subs, but that's no more than an educated guess based on the information I collect. If you throw in the "shocking" sales being recorded by the Denver studio for the TCG then financially SWG seems to be doing rather well.
100-150k subscribers would make for at least 10-15 of the servers being FULL. Not light or medium, but full. That is the common accepted measurement of subscriber to server ratio. Considering how the swg servers are brought to their knees with any sizable popluation running around I think it is obvious that is not the case here. 150k thousands subscribers is enough to give all 25 servers very decent populations. All of them. That would put on average close to 1,200 players online during peek hours on each server. How many do you think starsider has?
Also if swg had 150k players, why has there not been a paid expansion in over 4 years? Games of this size get expansions and swg has not had one since the nge took effect. Why?
If swg had the population you think it would be doing as well as EQ/EQ2 and I think it is obvious that this game does not have that type of support.
Number of cities does not equate to more players. It just means more cities. That is like saying there are more items on vendors so there must be a subscriber increase. When people move from their old server to a new one it makes logical sense that they would try to remake their old city in some fashion.
Your comparison of the number of officers years ago to now is flawed as I described above. There are more officers now, because soe made it very easy to obtain officer rank, especially compared to how it was years ago. There is almost no effort to gain officer rank in comparison. Which still does not address Tux point of there being 3,000 less officers now than there where shortly after the changes to make getting officer easier. I'm not sure if you really don't understand what tux said or are using selective hearing so you can ignore the issue.
In the end $OE will repay them as they have done us.
I used your chart Badger:
Looking at your chart, you can clearly see the drastic decline last month...3000 may be high, but 2500 isn't.
This current decline took place after a 3-month development cycle for "battle fields" - an Update directly aimed at increasing interest in GCW/PvP...it was even called a "PvP Update". But the Battle Fields were something the community didn't ask for, PvPers didn't want and the Developers (Hanse) did sloppily.
What we can see from the chart is that there was an initial spike to Officer numbers (30-day vets or real interest?)...which would indicate the update was a "success"?! What follows though is what has to be troubling...
In just 30-days following that spike from GU10, they lost 2500 Officers. The last time we had a drop of 2500 Officers was between Sept 2007 and April 2008...an 8-month span. And that drop can be directly attributed to the introduction of Heroics. What do you attribute this decline to?
Given that GU10 made GCW points easier to gain than ever and decreased decay by 20%, I don't think you'll see that "net gain" last too long.
Again, let me use your own chart to argue your numbers:
Add those all up Badger. I added all but TCP and came up with 46,590 "residents". Since each player can have a minimum of 2 toons per account, lets cut that number in half - we come up with 23,295...a FAR cry from 100-150k.
If you want to argue "but people don't always declare" or "some people like to live as nomads", I'll argue that the vast majority DO live in a city! Add to that multiple accounts, 3 toons per account, multiple toons on different servers and I think we can safely guess a TRUE number to be around 20k MAX! And there's also the issue of "protected citizens"...I think a mayor can protect up to 20% of his citizens to maintain rank. That would mean our starting number of 46,590 could be too high by up to 20% (9,318 people).
Looking at your numbers Badger, I come up with a helluva lot less than you do...can you please explain how you came to your conclusion of 100-150k???
Tux's comment is incorrect. I've looked over my spreadsheet of GCW numbers over the last four years three times and have no idea what he is referring to.
Tux, if you need clarification on this, you can always hop onto the Stratics IRC.
Tux's comment is incorrect. I've looked over my spreadsheet of GCW numbers over the last four years three times and have no idea what he is referring to.
Tux, if you need clarification on this, you can always hop onto the Stratics IRC.
Hopefully I clarified it for you above?! And thanks for the offer (IRC). I'll take you up on that
May not get to it today, but I'll hop on soon for sure.
The total number of MINIMUM players declared in a city to lead to the city ranks on that server is 50,265. If you have a city with 450 declared citizens, I can only count 40 of them with these stats.
That's why my guess is much higher than yours, I know that there aren't al that many rank 5 cities with exactly 40 citizens declared.
Look forward to chatting to you soon mate.
The total number of MINIMUM players declared in a city to lead to the city ranks on that server is 50,265. If you have a city with 450 declared citizens, I can only count 40 of them with these stats.
That's why my guess is much higher than yours, I know that there aren't al that many rank 5 cities with exactly 40 citizens declared.
Look forward to chatting to you soon mate.
That should be "Characters", since everyone gets two per account on up to four servers (eight total across all servers).