Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Holophonist
but I wouldn't want a player like that in my game anyway. Somebody who can't enjoy and appreciate new and interesting features probably doesn't have the attention span to play a deep game anyway.
Whether you want a player like that is irrelevant unless you are a dev.
Devs decide what audience they want to go after.
Different games appeal to different people. You say gamers won't wait around for systems like that to be implemented, I say people like that aren't the target audience. It's like saying nobody should write an opera because most people prefer pop music and rap.
And how many operas are being written today, compared to pop music and rap?
Sure, there is always an audience. However, if it is tiny, it won't get much attention from the market, will it?
And again, my point is that devs decide what audience they want to go after, not you.
I never said there should be as many sandbox games as there are themeparks. But there should be accurate representation, and there isn't. There is in other aspects if life, like the opera scenario. The vast vast majority of people prefer top 40, but people who prefer other types of music still have something that suits them... we don't. Also there's a good chance that a lot of people who play shitty themepark games simply don't know any better because they haven't been exposed to sandbox games.
I never said there should be as many sandbox games as there are themeparks. But there should be accurate representation, and there isn't. There is in other aspects if life, like the opera scenario. The vast vast majority of people prefer top 40, but people who prefer other types of music still have something that suits them... we don't. Also there's a good chance that a lot of people who play shitty themepark games simply don't know any better because they haven't been exposed to sandbox games.
There is no fundamental reason why you should get what you want. Devs don't owe you any games. If the audience is too small, there is no support. That is just simple supply and demand, you like it or not. And the market is working as it should.
Music is cheap to produce. A garage + a website is all you need. MMO costs tens of millions.
And it is not always the case that any demand should be served. Locked room mysteries are no longer written in the US after the golden age in the 1930-50. The whole genre kind of die.
And no ... lots of people don't play sandbox because they are shitty games. I tried UO, EQ and Eve .. very bad, boring, no-fun (for me) games. You cannot argue taste and preferences. You don't seem to understand that what you think "shitty" is fun for others.
Trammel released in 2000, UO peaked in 2003, not a big difference from 2001 but a bit, then the decline started. Essentially held steady from 2001-2003 with marginal increase in 2003.
Trammel released in 2000, UO peaked in 2003, not a big difference from 2001 but a bit, then the decline started. Essentially held steady from 2001-2003 with marginal increase in 2003.
Trammel released in 2000, UO peaked in 2003, not a big difference from 2001 but a bit, then the decline started. Essentially held steady from 2001-2003 with marginal increase in 2003.Now to argue about the accuracyhttp://mmodata.net/
Sorry but are we even looking at the same graph? Gets a bump from tram then starts declining less than a year later. Then around the time of aos it gets another bump before it continues its descent. This is exactly what I described. Exactly.
Trammel released in 2000, UO peaked in 2003, not a big difference from 2001 but a bit, then the decline started. Essentially held steady from 2001-2003 with marginal increase in 2003.
Sorry but are we even looking at the same graph? Gets a bump from tram then starts declining less than a year later. Then around the time of aos it gets another bump before it continues its descent. This is exactly what I described. Exactly.
So gets a bump from tram, a significant bump, slightly decline at times, slight increase at times, peak in 2003, significant decline after.
If thats what you said than thats fine. It still did peak in 2003, 3 years after trammel, it still did essentially hold steady for 2 years.
Post trammel UO had 1.6 times the population of pretrammel UO for 3 years.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I never said there should be as many sandbox games as there are themeparks. But there should be accurate representation, and there isn't. There is in other aspects if life, like the opera scenario. The vast vast majority of people prefer top 40, but people who prefer other types of music still have something that suits them... we don't. Also there's a good chance that a lot of people who play shitty themepark games simply don't know any better because they haven't been exposed to sandbox games.
There is no fundamental reason why you should get what you want. Devs don't owe you any games. If the audience is too small, there is no support. That is just simple supply and demand, you like it or not. And the market is working as it should.
Music is cheap to produce. A garage + a website is all you need. MMO costs tens of millions.
And it is not always the case that any demand should be served. Locked room mysteries are no longer written in the US after the golden age in the 1930-50. The whole genre kind of die.
And no ... lots of people don't play sandbox because they are shitty games. I tried UO, EQ and Eve .. very bad, boring, no-fun (for me) games. You cannot argue taste and preferences. You don't seem to understand that what you think "shitty" is fun for others.
I never said everybody who plays themeparks are doing so because they haven't tried sandboxes. I said its likely that its the case for a lot of them. Just because you personally have tried sandbox games and don't like them, doesn't mean that's the case for the other tens of millions of people playing wow and the like. I guarantee there are people playing non sandbox games because they don't know any better. You're denying that ANY people like that exist?
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Trammel released in 2000, UO peaked in 2003, not a big difference from 2001 but a bit, then the decline started. Essentially held steady from 2001-2003 with marginal increase in 2003.Now to argue about the accuracyhttp://mmodata.net/
Sorry but are we even looking at the same graph? Gets a bump from tram then starts declining less than a year later. Then around the time of aos it gets another bump before it continues its descent. This is exactly what I described. Exactly.
So gets a bump from tram, a significant bump, slightly decline at times, slight increase at times, peak in 2003, significant decline after.
If thats what you said than thats fine. It still did peak in 2003, 3 years after trammel, it still did essentially hold steady for 2 years.
Except it didn't increase at times. After the initial bump it was all downhill or flat until the next shot in the arm.
Trammel released in 2000, UO peaked in 2003, not a big difference from 2001 but a bit, then the decline started. Essentially held steady from 2001-2003 with marginal increase in 2003.
Sorry but are we even looking at the same graph? Gets a bump from tram then starts declining less than a year later. Then around the time of aos it gets another bump before it continues its descent. This is exactly what I described. Exactly.
So gets a bump from tram, a significant bump, slightly decline at times, slight increase at times, peak in 2003, significant decline after.
If thats what you said than thats fine. It still did peak in 2003, 3 years after trammel, it still did essentially hold steady for 2 years.
Except it didn't increase at times. After the initial bump it was all downhill or flat until the next shot in the arm.
flat then for the majority, it still had ~1.6 times the population of pre-trammel. It still did peak in 2003, 3 years after trammel, it still did essentially hold steady for 2 years.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Trammel released in 2000, UO peaked in 2003, not a big difference from 2001 but a bit, then the decline started. Essentially held steady from 2001-2003 with marginal increase in 2003.Now to argue about the accuracyhttp://mmodata.net/
Sorry but are we even looking at the same graph? Gets a bump from tram then starts declining less than a year later. Then around the time of aos it gets another bump before it continues its descent. This is exactly what I described. Exactly.
So gets a bump from tram, a significant bump, slightly decline at times, slight increase at times, peak in 2003, significant decline after.
If thats what you said than thats fine. It still did peak in 2003, 3 years after trammel, it still did essentially hold steady for 2 years.
Except it didn't increase at times. After the initial bump it was all downhill or flat until the next shot in the arm.
flat then for the majority, it still had ~1.6 times the population of pre-trammel. It still did peak in 2003, 3 years after trammel, it still did essentially hold steady for 2 years.
3 data points were flat and 3 were drops, with the last drop being a big one.. bigger than any seen during the pretram era. You call that holding steady? That's supposed to be trammel being a success?
The way you're talking about it is what's wrong with developers nowadays... they're just interested in the quick buck, the "peak".
Trammel released in 2000, UO peaked in 2003, not a big difference from 2001 but a bit, then the decline started. Essentially held steady from 2001-2003 with marginal increase in 2003.
Sorry but are we even looking at the same graph? Gets a bump from tram then starts declining less than a year later. Then around the time of aos it gets another bump before it continues its descent. This is exactly what I described. Exactly.
So gets a bump from tram, a significant bump, slightly decline at times, slight increase at times, peak in 2003, significant decline after.
If thats what you said than thats fine. It still did peak in 2003, 3 years after trammel, it still did essentially hold steady for 2 years.
Except it didn't increase at times. After the initial bump it was all downhill or flat until the next shot in the arm.
flat then for the majority, it still had ~1.6 times the population of pre-trammel. It still did peak in 2003, 3 years after trammel, it still did essentially hold steady for 2 years.
3 data points were flat and 3 were drops, with the last drop being a big one.. bigger than any seen during the pretram era. You call that holding steady? That's supposed to be trammel being a success? The way you're talking about it is what's wrong with developers nowadays... they're just interested in the quick buck, the "peak".
Just under 250k before first half of 2001, drop of estimated 15k (around 240k to 225k) from before first half of 2001 to 3/4 of 2001. Steady from 2/4 2001 to 2/4 2002, drop of estimated 15k (225k to 210k) from 3/4 2002 to just before 2003. Increase of estimated 40k (210k to 250k) from just before 2003 to just before first half of 2003.
So a drop of 15k in lss than than 6 months, followed by a year of steady, followed by a drop of 15k in less than 6 months, followed by an increase of 40k in less than 6 months is essentially holding steady.
So yes. That is trammel being a success, a full 1.6 times the population of pretrammel essentially holding steady for 2 years
I'm not making any assumptions of quick buck or developer plans. I'm stating that the population rose by 1.6 after trammel, maintained for 2 years and had a slight peak in 2003. Any assumptions are all yours.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Trammel released in 2000, UO peaked in 2003, not a big difference from 2001 but a bit, then the decline started. Essentially held steady from 2001-2003 with marginal increase in 2003.Now to argue about the accuracyhttp://mmodata.net/
Sorry but are we even looking at the same graph? Gets a bump from tram then starts declining less than a year later. Then around the time of aos it gets another bump before it continues its descent. This is exactly what I described. Exactly.
So gets a bump from tram, a significant bump, slightly decline at times, slight increase at times, peak in 2003, significant decline after.
If thats what you said than thats fine. It still did peak in 2003, 3 years after trammel, it still did essentially hold steady for 2 years.
Except it didn't increase at times. After the initial bump it was all downhill or flat until the next shot in the arm.
flat then for the majority, it still had ~1.6 times the population of pre-trammel. It still did peak in 2003, 3 years after trammel, it still did essentially hold steady for 2 years.
3 data points were flat and 3 were drops, with the last drop being a big one.. bigger than any seen during the pretram era. You call that holding steady? That's supposed to be trammel being a success? The way you're talking about it is what's wrong with developers nowadays... they're just interested in the quick buck, the "peak".
Just under 250k before first half of 2001, drop of estimated 15k (around 240k to 225k) from before first half of 2001 to 3/4 of 2001. Steady from 2/4 2001 to 2/4 2002, drop of estimated 15k (225k to 210k) from 3/4 2002 to just before 2003. Increase of estimated 40k (210k to 250k) from just before 2003 to just before first half of 2003.
So a drop of 15k in lss than than 6 months, followed by a year of steady, followed by a drop of 15k in less than 6 months, followed by an increase of 40k in less than 6 months is essentially holding steady.
So yes. That is trammel being a success, a full 1.6 times the population of pretrammel essentially holding steady for 2 years
I'm not making any assumptions of quick buck or developer plans. I'm stating that the population rose by 1.6 after trammel, maintained for 2 years and had a slight peak in 2003. Any assumptions are all yours.
1. Where you say 15k it's probably more like 25k.
2. The 40k increase you mention is when AoS came out. Not fair to attribute that to trammel.
3. You're still not accounting for the trends. Sure the overall level was higher than pre trammel but that's only because of an obvious bubble that trammel created. Releasing trammel gave a boost to the number of subs and then those subs started to decline until they tried to stop the bleeding with AoS, which ultimately shared the same fate: a temporary boost, leading to an inevitable crash.
3 data points were flat and 3 were drops, with the last drop being a big one.. bigger than any seen during the pretram era. You call that holding steady? That's supposed to be trammel being a success? The way you're talking about it is what's wrong with developers nowadays... they're just interested in the quick buck, the "peak".
What are you reading?
I found 9 data points from 2000 (only ~150k) to the peak in 2001 with ~250k sub. Therei s a clear increase of 100k sub ... 66% from 2000 to the peak.
Trammel released in 2000, UO peaked in 2003, not a big difference from 2001 but a bit, then the decline started. Essentially held steady from 2001-2003 with marginal increase in 2003.
Sorry but are we even looking at the same graph? Gets a bump from tram then starts declining less than a year later. Then around the time of aos it gets another bump before it continues its descent. This is exactly what I described. Exactly.
So gets a bump from tram, a significant bump, slightly decline at times, slight increase at times, peak in 2003, significant decline after.
If thats what you said than thats fine. It still did peak in 2003, 3 years after trammel, it still did essentially hold steady for 2 years.
Except it didn't increase at times. After the initial bump it was all downhill or flat until the next shot in the arm.
flat then for the majority, it still had ~1.6 times the population of pre-trammel. It still did peak in 2003, 3 years after trammel, it still did essentially hold steady for 2 years.
3 data points were flat and 3 were drops, with the last drop being a big one.. bigger than any seen during the pretram era. You call that holding steady? That's supposed to be trammel being a success? The way you're talking about it is what's wrong with developers nowadays... they're just interested in the quick buck, the "peak".
Just under 250k before first half of 2001, drop of estimated 15k (around 240k to 225k) from before first half of 2001 to 3/4 of 2001. Steady from 2/4 2001 to 2/4 2002, drop of estimated 15k (225k to 210k) from 3/4 2002 to just before 2003. Increase of estimated 40k (210k to 250k) from just before 2003 to just before first half of 2003.
So a drop of 15k in lss than than 6 months, followed by a year of steady, followed by a drop of 15k in less than 6 months, followed by an increase of 40k in less than 6 months is essentially holding steady.
So yes. That is trammel being a success, a full 1.6 times the population of pretrammel essentially holding steady for 2 years
I'm not making any assumptions of quick buck or developer plans. I'm stating that the population rose by 1.6 after trammel, maintained for 2 years and had a slight peak in 2003. Any assumptions are all yours.
1. Where you say 15k it's probably more like 25k.
2. The 40k increase you mention is when AoS came out. Not fair to attribute that to trammel.
3. You're still not accounting for the trends. Sure the overall level was higher than pre trammel but that's only because of an obvious bubble that trammel created. Releasing trammel gave a boost to the number of subs and then those subs started to decline until they tried to stop the bleeding with AoS, which ultimately shared the same fate: a temporary boost, leading to an inevitable crash.
1. The chart clearly shows less than 250 and the next one is at 225, so it cannot be 25k.
2. I didn't attribute it to trammel, I stated the peak happened after trammel. Thats it.
3. Now you are using conjecture saying it was just a bubble. That bubble that you say, lasted for more than 2 years, that is a good bubble.
There was a slight decline, then held steady for a year , followed by a slight decline, than increase of more than both slight declines put together.
I don't know what would have happened had trammel not released that is conjecture. All we can state is that after trammel there was a significant increase in the population, then held steady for approximately 2 years, then started to decline.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Trammel released in 2000, UO peaked in 2003, not a big difference from 2001 but a bit, then the decline started. Essentially held steady from 2001-2003 with marginal increase in 2003.
Sorry but are we even looking at the same graph? Gets a bump from tram then starts declining less than a year later. Then around the time of aos it gets another bump before it continues its descent. This is exactly what I described. Exactly.
So gets a bump from tram, a significant bump, slightly decline at times, slight increase at times, peak in 2003, significant decline after.
If thats what you said than thats fine. It still did peak in 2003, 3 years after trammel, it still did essentially hold steady for 2 years.
Except it didn't increase at times. After the initial bump it was all downhill or flat until the next shot in the arm.
flat then for the majority, it still had ~1.6 times the population of pre-trammel. It still did peak in 2003, 3 years after trammel, it still did essentially hold steady for 2 years.
3 data points were flat and 3 were drops, with the last drop being a big one.. bigger than any seen during the pretram era. You call that holding steady? That's supposed to be trammel being a success? The way you're talking about it is what's wrong with developers nowadays... they're just interested in the quick buck, the "peak".
Just under 250k before first half of 2001, drop of estimated 15k (around 240k to 225k) from before first half of 2001 to 3/4 of 2001. Steady from 2/4 2001 to 2/4 2002, drop of estimated 15k (225k to 210k) from 3/4 2002 to just before 2003. Increase of estimated 40k (210k to 250k) from just before 2003 to just before first half of 2003.
So a drop of 15k in lss than than 6 months, followed by a year of steady, followed by a drop of 15k in less than 6 months, followed by an increase of 40k in less than 6 months is essentially holding steady.
So yes. That is trammel being a success, a full 1.6 times the population of pretrammel essentially holding steady for 2 years
I'm not making any assumptions of quick buck or developer plans. I'm stating that the population rose by 1.6 after trammel, maintained for 2 years and had a slight peak in 2003. Any assumptions are all yours.
1. Where you say 15k it's probably more like 25k.
2. The 40k increase you mention is when AoS came out. Not fair to attribute that to trammel.
3. You're still not accounting for the trends. Sure the overall level was higher than pre trammel but that's only because of an obvious bubble that trammel created. Releasing trammel gave a boost to the number of subs and then those subs started to decline until they tried to stop the bleeding with AoS, which ultimately shared the same fate: a temporary boost, leading to an inevitable crash.
1. The chart clearly shows less than 250 and the next one is at 225, so it cannot be 25k.
It's slightly under 250 and then 2 data points later it's basically at, maybe slightly below 225.... that equals 25, not 15. Even if it's not exactly 25, it's closer to 25 than 15.
2. I didn't attribute it to trammel, I stated the peak happened after trammel. Thats it.
No you outlined what happened on the graph and then said "So yeah trammel was a success" and one of the things you mentioned was the 40k increase. Why mention the 40k increase at all, if it's not related to trammel? That's what we're talking about, what effect trammel had on the game.
3. Now you are using conjecture saying it was just a bubble. That bubble that you say, lasted for more than 2 years, that is a good bubble.
What do you mean lasted for more than 2 years? The decline started about a year after Trammel was implemented. The only time it reversed its decline was when AOS was introduced.
There was a slight decline, then held steady for a year , followed by a slight decline, than increase of more than both slight declines put together.
See? You're using that increase as an argument for what exactly? For AOS? Why are you counting that increase as anything? The discussion is about trammel.
I don't know what would have happened had trammel not released that is conjecture. All we can state is that after trammel there was a significant increase in the population, then held steady for approximately 2 years, then started to decline.
Yeah this is just not true at all and I hope your chosen profession doesn't involve data analysis. Dropping 50k subs with no increases isn't "holding steady." The decline starts around Q2 2001, the only time that decline is reversed is when AOS is implemented, which boosts the subs again until it RESUMES its decline, this time indefinitely.
Slightly under 250 on a graph that size is close to 240, then at 225 is not 25, it is less than 25. Likely closer to 15.
Trammel was a success. The population grew to 1.6 times the size pre-trammel and held relatively stable positions for 2 years. That is a success.
The peak happened 3 years after trammel, as we’ve stated all along. I didn’t state why only what was, you said it peaked in 2001, that was wrong. It didn’t, it peaked in 2003.
The trammel effect was to grow the population to1.6 times the size pre-trammel.
Would they have had the same peak in 2003 without it? I don’t know, I think likely not though, why? because once again, trammel increased the popluation to 1.6 times the size
Trammel released in 2003 it rose in 2001, dipped a bit in 2001, stayed steady for a year, dipped a bit in 2002, then peaked in 2003. That is 3 years. After the initial height in 2001, then to 2003 it is 2 years. So it is 3 years from trammel release to peak, and 2 years from initial trammel heights to peak.
I’m using this statement to show the peak happened in 2003, not in 2001 as you stated.
Increasing 100k subs in one year, then over 2 years (dropping 15ksubs in 6 months, holding steady for a year, dropping another 15k subs, then increasing 40 k subs), is holding steady.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Slightly under 250 on a graph that size is close to 240, then at 225 is not 25, it is less than 25. Likely closer to 15.
But the dot you're comparing it to is also under 225.
Trammel was a success. The population grew to 1.6 times the size pre-trammel and held there for 3 years. That is a success.
NO. Starting to decline a year after it was implemented is not "holding there" it's just dying slowly, that's all. That's not sustaining anything. It was trending downwards very soon after trammel. And like you said, you can't know what would happen if they implemented something other than trammel. But if you think a slight bump and then a downward trend is a "success" then I'm not sure what to tell you.
The peak happened 3 years after trammel, as we’ve stated all along. I didn’t state why only what was, you said it peaked in 2001, that was wrong. It didn’t, it peaked in 2003.
You keep saying that as if I'm denying when the peak was. I may have said that trammel peaked in 2001, as in the initial bump in subscribers, and that's true. The peak you're talking about clearly was a result of AOS, not trammel, and was also temporary just like trammel's success was temporary.
The trammel effect was to grow the population to1.6 times the size pre-trammel.
And then die.
Would they have had the same peak in 2003 without it? I don’t know, I think likely not though, why? because once again, trammel increased the popluation to 1.6 times the size
Yeah, that's called a bubble. An artificial boost, followed by a crash. Post-trammel didn't crash as fast something like the housing market or the stock market post-911, but you simply can't deny the downward trend following trammel's "success."
That's EXACTLY what I'd expect to see from implementing a change like that btw. That's what you see from basically all of the themeparks, as well. HUGE success, followed by declines.
The most consistent line on that chart seems to be EVE, a game has for the most part stuck to its sandbox principles. So I think it's likely that UO would've continued its slow but steady increase in population if it dealt with whatever issues it ran into with its usual sandbox, simulation-based way of dealing with things, not trammel.
Trammel released in 2003 it rose in 2001, dipped a bit in 2001, stayed steady for a year, dipped a bit in 2002, then peaked in 2003. That is 3 years. After the initial height in 2001, then to 2003 it is 2 years.
I assume you mean trammel was released in 2000. Also, again you're using the increase in 2003 as some kind of argument for trammel, but it was almost certainly because of AOS... not because of trammel.
I’m using this statement to show the peak happened in 2003, not in 2001 as you stated.
Increasing 100k subs Dropping 15ksubs in 6 months, holding steady for a year, dropping another 15k subs, then increasing 40 k subs – is holding steady.
STOP USING THE 40K INCREASE IN YOUR ARGUMENT. It's outright wrong and dishonest. That's called data mining. You can't say the population was "holding steady" and then use an increase from something else as evidence of it "holding steady." Are you serious right now?
YES. There was a slight decline A YEAR after trammel was implemented. In that year it grew 100,000 subs. It then dropped by 15, held steady for a year, dropped by 15 and grew by 40. That is holding steady.
It was not trending downward soon after trammel, it took a year to trend downward.
If you don’t think growing by 100k, dropping 15, steady for a year, dropping 15, increasing 40 is not a success than I’m not sure what to tell you.
You keep saying that as if I'm denying when the peak was. I may have said that trammel peaked in 2001, as in the initial bump in subscribers, and that's true. The peak you're talking about clearly was a result of AOS, not trammel, and was also temporary just like trammel's success was temporary.
Jean luc just said, “UO peaked its population 3+ years after Trammel was introduced,” You said he was wrong and it just got a small bump. The peak in 2003 might have been because of aos however without that 1.6x pre-trammel population boost it likely would not have been the peak at all.
Trammel’s increased population lasted 3 years.
And then die. – as all games eventually do
Yeah, that's called a bubble. An artificial boost, followed by a crash. Post-trammel didn't crash as fast something like the housing market or the stock market post-911, but you simply can't deny the downward trend following trammel's "success."
How was in an artificial boost? The game had significant increased populations for years. That’s not a bubble. There was not artificial boost, just a boost.
That's EXACTLY what I'd expect to see from implementing a change like that btw. That's what you see from basically all of the themeparks, as well. HUGE success, followed by declines.
It makes more sense to get 2 million subscribers initially and fall to 500,000 then have less then 500,000 initially and grow to a max of 500,000.
The most consistent line on that chart seems to be EVE, a game has for the most part stuck to its sandbox principles. So I think it's likely that UO would've continued its slow but steady increase in population if it dealt with whatever issues it ran into with its usual sandbox, simulation-based way of dealing with things, not trammel.
Eve has been a success, no denying that, and totally irrelevant to the discussion about trammel increasing UO’s population significantly and UO’s peak occurring in 2003.
STOP USING THE 40K INCREASE IN YOUR ARGUMENT. It's outright wrong and dishonest. That's called data mining. You can't say the population was "holding steady" and then use an increase from something else as evidence of it "holding steady." Are you serious right now?
The 40k is not wrong, it is shown right there on the graph. You not liking it doesn’t make it wrong. We absolutely can say that the population dropping 15k, holding steady, dropping 15k and increasing 40k is a sign of relative stability. You may not like it, that doesn’t make it wrong. That was UO’s population after Trammel, yes other factors influenced as well, maybe a lot, but that was STILL UO’s population AFTER trammel.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
It's actually under it but this isn't going anywhere obviously.
YES. There was a slight decline A YEAR after trammel was implemented. In that year it grew 100,000 subs. It then dropped by 15, held steady for a year, dropped by 15 and grew by 40. That is holding steady.
Why for the love of everything that is holy do you keep counting that 40k on your side? Why?? It happened because of AOS, and it happened after years of nothing but declines and stagnation.
It was not trending downward soon after trammel, it took a year to trend downward.
Yes, that's soon. Trammel was a new player friendly feature that removed depth from the game. It seems to fit incredibly well that those new players stayed for a year and then quit once they did all of the things they wanted to do... you can argue about the subjectivity of me using the word "soon" or you can try to think about it in the context of this debate. I'm saying trammel gave the game a shot in the arm in new players, but it was temporary.
If you don’t think growing by 100k, dropping 15, steady for a year, dropping 15, increasing 40 is not a success than I’m not sure what to tell you.
Again, stop using that 40k in your argument. It doesn't make sense and it's dishonest. And you're not telling the whole story. The trend was downward, the game was dying. There were no increases in the population for almost 2 years, then they implement AOS to boost subs again. Just because the game hadn't died just yet doesn't mean it's a success.
Take out that AOS boost and what does the chart show? The game dying over 6 or so years. And when would the peak have been? 1 year after trammel was implemented. So as I've said the ENTIRE TIME: Trammel gave the game a boost in subscribers, but then the game started its steady decline with only a couple of (actually only ONE) meaningful turning points, and they were temporary. That's not conjecture, that's not my opinion, that's what the chart says. 1 year after trammel was implemented, the game is on a CLEAR DOWNWARD SLOPE, and the only thing that slows down the decline is AOS in 2003, and that boost was short lived as well.
You keep saying that as if I'm denying when the peak was. I may have said that trammel peaked in 2001, as in the initial bump in subscribers, and that's true. The peak you're talking about clearly was a result of AOS, not trammel, and was also temporary just like trammel's success was temporary.
Jean luc just said, “UO peaked its population 3+ years after Trammel was introduced,” You said he was wrong and it just got a small bump. The peak in 2003 might have been because of aos however without that 1.6x pre-trammel population boost it likely would not have been the peak at all.
Trammel’s increased population lasted 3 years.
I said he was wrong on a couple of accounts and then I explained how he was wrong. I never said the peak in population wasn't in 2003. I said it's wrong to interpret the data the way he was interpreting it. Just because the peak came 3 years after trammel does NOT mean that trammel was a success. It flat out does not mean that. Not only that, the clear trajectory change, according to the graph YOU posted, was AFTER trammel was implemented. We don't know what exactly happend leading up to trammel, but according to the graph, the game was growing just fine. AFTER trammel was implemented, the trend was grim.
And then die. – as all games eventually do
EvE hasn't yet. All mmo's die, but the point I'd make about trammel is that it started a trend in the mmo genre of catering to the whims of newer players at the expense of gameplay depth. In other words, more money NOW, less money LATER. I'm not claiming that a more organic method of deterring griefing like a jail system or bounty system would have increased UO's population as much as trammel did as QUICKLY as trammel did, I'm making the claim that it would have increased slowly but surely, just as EVE has done.
Yeah, that's called a bubble. An artificial boost, followed by a crash. Post-trammel didn't crash as fast something like the housing market or the stock market post-911, but you simply can't deny the downward trend following trammel's "success."
How was in an artificial boost? The game had significant increased populations for years. That’s not a bubble. There was not artificial boost, just a boost.
Just a boost.... followed by a crash. What else would you call it? A boost that lasted for 1 year, followed by a decline that lasted for like 6 or 7 years with the exception of when AOS was implemented.
That's EXACTLY what I'd expect to see from implementing a change like that btw. That's what you see from basically all of the themeparks, as well. HUGE success, followed by declines.
It makes more sense to get 2 million subscribers initially and fall to 500,000 then have less then 500,000 initially and grow to a max of 500,000.
Where are you getting this "max of 500,000"? You don't know what the max would have been. This is just a silly nonsensical example that isn't based in reality or reason.
Look at EVE, slow and steady. In fact the EVE line and the pre-tram UO line look very similar. Again, I'm not claiming that NOT implementing trammel would've lead to a similar increase in subs, what I'm claiming is that a more simulation-based, organic solution to whatever problems they were facing would've lead to more LONG TERM growth. At any rate it's hard to imagine it would be in any worse shape than it is now: basically a failure and a laughing stock.
The most consistent line on that chart seems to be EVE, a game has for the most part stuck to its sandbox principles. So I think it's likely that UO would've continued its slow but steady increase in population if it dealt with whatever issues it ran into with its usual sandbox, simulation-based way of dealing with things, not trammel.
Eve has been a success, no denying that, and totally irrelevant to the discussion about trammel increasing UO’s population significantly and UO’s peak occurring in 2003.
How is it irrelevant? The discussion is about how successful trammel was. I'm making the claim that trammel ultimately HURT UO. That it was an overall negative compared to them increasing simulation and roleplaying, rather than decreasing it. Increasing the game's depth, rather than watering the game down.
This discussion isn't just about data points on a graph. Those data points are used to either support or hurt certain claims. So if there's another sandbox that has had a similar history in terms of subscribers, I don't see how it's irrelevant to the discussion.
STOP USING THE 40K INCREASE IN YOUR ARGUMENT. It's outright wrong and dishonest. That's called data mining. You can't say the population was "holding steady" and then use an increase from something else as evidence of it "holding steady." Are you serious right now?
The 40k is not wrong, it is shown right there on the graph. You not liking it doesn’t make it wrong. We absolutely can say that the population dropping 15k, holding steady, dropping 15k and increasing 40k is a sign of relative stability. You may not like it, that doesn’t make it wrong. That was UO’s population after Trammel, yes other factors influenced as well, maybe a lot, but that was STILL UO’s population AFTER trammel.
What are you even talking about? I'm not claiming that the 40k increase didn't exist. Are you even reading what I'm writing? I've said a number of times that the 40k increase was at the exact same time AOS was implemented. I'm not saying it didn't exist, I'm saying it has nothing to do with trammel.
So I'll ask again, WHY are you counting that 40k increase in a discussion about trammel? That was obviously due to AOS being released and even that was short lived!
Trammel gave UO a bump in subscribers for a year, then started to decline and never saw another increase in population with the exception of the couple of quarters around AOS being released and a TINY increase in 2006 (looks like a couple of thousand).
The 40k happened AFTER Trammel, which is what the argument was about. UO grew AFTER trammel. Yes it may have been largely in response to aos, but it was still AFTER trammel.
UO peaked AFTER trammel, the game had the most subscribers AFTER trammel. The game was the most successfull AFTER tramel. The game had the longest stability (of any of its' timeframe) AFTER trammel.
Eve will eventually die. And disagree that it is about more money money less money later, it is about more money now, the same amount of money later.
The max of 500,00 was in relation to the general mmo market. Before WoW the games trended between 50 and 500k, starting off with less. After wow the trend was 2 million sales and dropping to 50-500k. The longevity is the same, they are and will be played for years. The stable populations are the same 50-500k, but they start out with much much higher bases.
A boost that lasted for years, and only dropped significnatly after 2003.
Eve's success is irrelevant to UO's success. You can make the claim that Trammel hurt all you want but you have no evidence of any kind. The only evidence available was that it gained 100,000 subscribers after trammel hit. Anything about how the game would have fared if Trammel never existed is entirely unfounded speculation.
I didn't say the 40k had anything to do with Trammel either. I'm just saying it came after trammel was implemented, just like all the other growth did.
You said to stop using it in my argument, that it was wrong. My argument was always that UO peaked after trammel. Thats not wrong. I gave no reasons as to why. Why is just speculation. I'll leave the speculation to you and just deal with the data.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The 40k happened AFTER Trammel, which is what the argument was about. UO grew AFTER trammel. Yes it may have been largely in response to aos, but it was still AFTER trammel.
Well then why stop at the 40k increase? If the argument is about what happened after trammel, then let's include the fact that at the end of that graph, the game is at 100k subs and may be even lower now. What you're doing is data mining..
UO peaked AFTER trammel, the game had the most subscribers AFTER trammel. The game was the most successfull AFTER tramel. The game had the longest stability (of any of its' timeframe) AFTER trammel.
The game died AFTER trammel. So I like how you include whatever positives you can think of, but not the negatives. The game had more declines in population AFTER trammel. And by the way, what do you mean the game had the longest stability? According to that graph, every data point leading up to trammel showed an increase in subs. According to that graph, the ONLY time the game lost subs was after trammel.
Listing "good things" that happened after trammel was implemented shows you just straight up don't understand anything about data analysis.
Eve will eventually die. And disagree that it is about more money money less money later, it is about more money now, the same amount of money later.
Except it's not about the same amount of money later. According to the graph, UO is currently BELOW its pre-trammel subs. Not to mention you're assuming that UO without Trammel wouldn't have grown at all. But even assuming that, like I said, it's currently lower than pre-trammel levels. So why do you think it's going to mean more money now and the same amount of money later? Doesn't seem accurate to me.
The max of 500,00 was in relation to the general mmo market. Before WoW the games trended between 50 and 500k, starting off with less. After wow the trend was 2 million sales and dropping to 50-500k. The longevity is the same, they are and will be played for years. The stable populations are the same 50-500k, but they start out with much much higher bases.
Why does anybody care about the "general mmo market"? You're still assuming that this game (whatever game you're talking about) would have only ever reached a max of 500k. That's just pure speculation. And the reason you're even making that analogy is to compare it to UO's Trammel... and you DEFINITELY can't make the claim that UO wouldn't have gotten to the 2003 peak without Trammel. So I'm just not sure what purpose this analogy serves or if it's even coherent.
A boost that lasted for years, and only dropped significnatly after 2003.
The boost lasted for 1 year, not years. You may be confusing it with the decline that UO has been experiencing, which has indeed lasted years. You can say it only dropped "significantly" after 2003, but yet again you're just totally ignoring the downward trend starting in 2001.
Eve's success is irrelevant to UO's success. You can make the claim that Trammel hurt all you want but you have no evidence of any kind. The only evidence available was that it gained 100,000 subscribers after trammel hit. Anything about how the game would have fared if Trammel never existed is entirely unfounded speculation.
I have no evidence in the sense that we don't live in an alternate reality where trammel wasn't implemented. What I do know is that the game's long term downward spiral happened after trammel was implemented. You can say that trammel merely postponed the inevitable or whatever, but you wouldn't have any evidence of that either. That's why it's a discussion. In discussions people use reason and logic and similar examples, like EVE. It's not irrelevant, and it's not proof.
I didn't say the 40k had anything to do with Trammel either. I'm just saying it came after trammel was implemented, just like all the other growth did.
Well the discussion is about how well UO fared after Trammel. Like I've said before, you're data mining by picking that specific time to stop.
You said to stop using it in my argument, that it was wrong. My argument was always that UO peaked after trammel. Thats not wrong. I gave no reasons as to why. Why is just speculation. I'll leave the speculation to you and just deal with the data.
Actually you said Trammel was a success. That's not impartial. And also you can play the neutral card and say that you're just "dealing with the data" but data can be framed and interpreted a number of different ways. For instance, you say that the decrease between 2001 and 2003 was insignificant. I say it shows the beginning of a long term downward trend that was only slowed down with the AOS expansion.
Anybody can look at data points on a graph and say "Gee! that dot is higher than all the other dots!", that's not hard. We didn't need you to come in and tell us which dot was the highest. The peak was never in question. The question is what overall effect did trammel have on UO? And I think it's pretty obvious, given that graph.
Trammel gave the game a boost in subs, but then after about a year it started to decline and didn't stop its downward trend except for another temporary boost from the AOS expansion. Do you disagree with this statement? If so, how? Look at that graph and please tell me how I'm wrong. If you adjust for the AOS boost (take temporary bump out), then CLEARLY the beginning of the long and steady decline starts at that 2001 post-trammel peak.
I don't mean to interrupt your three pages of chart debate, but can I get a word in?
Originally posted by Holophonist That's the point of talking about it on the forums... so developers can see that there is a market for certain types of games. And as I've pointed out, we already see some games on the horizon that at least claim to be what some of us what.
Good points. Right now game makers are shamelessly bottom-feeding by copying WoW. I guess that's they only gig they could sell to investors in this crap economy. When enough games fall short of expectations and lose money, I just hope investors don't pull out of the industry, completely. Like you, I look forward to a time when more of the market (including you and I) is being served.
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard UO peaked its population 3+ years after Trammel was introduced.
The elimination of non-consensual PvP has nothing to do with this topic which, in case you forgot, talks about how Fear of Death is all but gone in today's MMOs.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
I don't mean to interrupt your three pages of chart debate, but can I get a word in?
No, sorry. This thread is now to be used only for splitting hairs and back pedaling
Originally posted by Holophonist That's the point of talking about it on the forums... so developers can see that there is a market for certain types of games. And as I've pointed out, we already see some games on the horizon that at least claim to be what some of us what.
Good points. Right now game makers are shamelessly bottom-feeding by copying WoW. I guess that's they only gig they could sell to investors in this crap economy. When enough games fall short of expectations and lose money, I just hope investors don't pull out of the industry, completely. Like you, I look forward to a time when more of the market (including you and I) is being served.
Yeah the market is very much still in flux and still responding to people demanding themepark elements and then rejecting them. Especially consider the lost time of developers hearing that people want X, but not knowing how to implement it or trying to implement it in cheap, lazy ways.
The main thing that sticks out in my mind is TERA. I loved TERA's combat system and was somewhat excited to hear that it was going to have OW PvP. But, as it turns out, the OW PvP basically has no purpose and very little consequence so it just amounts to higher level players going to lower level zones to gank people... just because they can.
Comments
Whether you want a player like that is irrelevant unless you are a dev.
Devs decide what audience they want to go after.
Different games appeal to different people. You say gamers won't wait around for systems like that to be implemented, I say people like that aren't the target audience. It's like saying nobody should write an opera because most people prefer pop music and rap.And how many operas are being written today, compared to pop music and rap?
Sure, there is always an audience. However, if it is tiny, it won't get much attention from the market, will it?
And again, my point is that devs decide what audience they want to go after, not you.
I never said there should be as many sandbox games as there are themeparks. But there should be accurate representation, and there isn't. There is in other aspects if life, like the opera scenario. The vast vast majority of people prefer top 40, but people who prefer other types of music still have something that suits them... we don't. Also there's a good chance that a lot of people who play shitty themepark games simply don't know any better because they haven't been exposed to sandbox games.There is no fundamental reason why you should get what you want. Devs don't owe you any games. If the audience is too small, there is no support. That is just simple supply and demand, you like it or not. And the market is working as it should.
Music is cheap to produce. A garage + a website is all you need. MMO costs tens of millions.
And it is not always the case that any demand should be served. Locked room mysteries are no longer written in the US after the golden age in the 1930-50. The whole genre kind of die.
And no ... lots of people don't play sandbox because they are shitty games. I tried UO, EQ and Eve .. very bad, boring, no-fun (for me) games. You cannot argue taste and preferences. You don't seem to understand that what you think "shitty" is fun for others.
Trammel released in 2000, UO peaked in 2003, not a big difference from 2001 but a bit, then the decline started. Essentially held steady from 2001-2003 with marginal increase in 2003.
Now to argue about the accuracy
http://mmodata.net/
Now i would love to see what holo has to say now he is faced with facts.
My guess, he is going to claim his opinion is going to be more valid than facts.
Sorry but are we even looking at the same graph? Gets a bump from tram then starts declining less than a year later. Then around the time of aos it gets another bump before it continues its descent. This is exactly what I described. Exactly.So gets a bump from tram, a significant bump, slightly decline at times, slight increase at times, peak in 2003, significant decline after.
If thats what you said than thats fine. It still did peak in 2003, 3 years after trammel, it still did essentially hold steady for 2 years.
Post trammel UO had 1.6 times the population of pretrammel UO for 3 years.
There is no fundamental reason why you should get what you want. Devs don't owe you any games. If the audience is too small, there is no support. That is just simple supply and demand, you like it or not. And the market is working as it should.
Music is cheap to produce. A garage + a website is all you need. MMO costs tens of millions.
And it is not always the case that any demand should be served. Locked room mysteries are no longer written in the US after the golden age in the 1930-50. The whole genre kind of die.
And no ... lots of people don't play sandbox because they are shitty games. I tried UO, EQ and Eve .. very bad, boring, no-fun (for me) games. You cannot argue taste and preferences. You don't seem to understand that what you think "shitty" is fun for others.
I never said everybody who plays themeparks are doing so because they haven't tried sandboxes. I said its likely that its the case for a lot of them. Just because you personally have tried sandbox games and don't like them, doesn't mean that's the case for the other tens of millions of people playing wow and the like. I guarantee there are people playing non sandbox games because they don't know any better. You're denying that ANY people like that exist?
Sorry but are we even looking at the same graph? Gets a bump from tram then starts declining less than a year later. Then around the time of aos it gets another bump before it continues its descent. This is exactly what I described. Exactly.So gets a bump from tram, a significant bump, slightly decline at times, slight increase at times, peak in 2003, significant decline after.
If thats what you said than thats fine. It still did peak in 2003, 3 years after trammel, it still did essentially hold steady for 2 years.
Except it didn't increase at times. After the initial bump it was all downhill or flat until the next shot in the arm.flat then for the majority, it still had ~1.6 times the population of pre-trammel. It still did peak in 2003, 3 years after trammel, it still did essentially hold steady for 2 years.
Sorry but are we even looking at the same graph? Gets a bump from tram then starts declining less than a year later. Then around the time of aos it gets another bump before it continues its descent. This is exactly what I described. Exactly.So gets a bump from tram, a significant bump, slightly decline at times, slight increase at times, peak in 2003, significant decline after.
If thats what you said than thats fine. It still did peak in 2003, 3 years after trammel, it still did essentially hold steady for 2 years.
Except it didn't increase at times. After the initial bump it was all downhill or flat until the next shot in the arm.flat then for the majority, it still had ~1.6 times the population of pre-trammel. It still did peak in 2003, 3 years after trammel, it still did essentially hold steady for 2 years.
3 data points were flat and 3 were drops, with the last drop being a big one.. bigger than any seen during the pretram era. You call that holding steady? That's supposed to be trammel being a success?The way you're talking about it is what's wrong with developers nowadays... they're just interested in the quick buck, the "peak".
Just under 250k before first half of 2001, drop of estimated 15k (around 240k to 225k) from before first half of 2001 to 3/4 of 2001. Steady from 2/4 2001 to 2/4 2002, drop of estimated 15k (225k to 210k) from 3/4 2002 to just before 2003. Increase of estimated 40k (210k to 250k) from just before 2003 to just before first half of 2003.
So a drop of 15k in lss than than 6 months, followed by a year of steady, followed by a drop of 15k in less than 6 months, followed by an increase of 40k in less than 6 months is essentially holding steady.
So yes. That is trammel being a success, a full 1.6 times the population of pretrammel essentially holding steady for 2 years
I'm not making any assumptions of quick buck or developer plans. I'm stating that the population rose by 1.6 after trammel, maintained for 2 years and had a slight peak in 2003. Any assumptions are all yours.
Sorry but are we even looking at the same graph? Gets a bump from tram then starts declining less than a year later. Then around the time of aos it gets another bump before it continues its descent. This is exactly what I described. Exactly.So gets a bump from tram, a significant bump, slightly decline at times, slight increase at times, peak in 2003, significant decline after.
If thats what you said than thats fine. It still did peak in 2003, 3 years after trammel, it still did essentially hold steady for 2 years.
Except it didn't increase at times. After the initial bump it was all downhill or flat until the next shot in the arm.flat then for the majority, it still had ~1.6 times the population of pre-trammel. It still did peak in 2003, 3 years after trammel, it still did essentially hold steady for 2 years.
3 data points were flat and 3 were drops, with the last drop being a big one.. bigger than any seen during the pretram era. You call that holding steady? That's supposed to be trammel being a success? The way you're talking about it is what's wrong with developers nowadays... they're just interested in the quick buck, the "peak".Just under 250k before first half of 2001, drop of estimated 15k (around 240k to 225k) from before first half of 2001 to 3/4 of 2001. Steady from 2/4 2001 to 2/4 2002, drop of estimated 15k (225k to 210k) from 3/4 2002 to just before 2003. Increase of estimated 40k (210k to 250k) from just before 2003 to just before first half of 2003.
So a drop of 15k in lss than than 6 months, followed by a year of steady, followed by a drop of 15k in less than 6 months, followed by an increase of 40k in less than 6 months is essentially holding steady.
So yes. That is trammel being a success, a full 1.6 times the population of pretrammel essentially holding steady for 2 years
I'm not making any assumptions of quick buck or developer plans. I'm stating that the population rose by 1.6 after trammel, maintained for 2 years and had a slight peak in 2003. Any assumptions are all yours.
1. Where you say 15k it's probably more like 25k.2. The 40k increase you mention is when AoS came out. Not fair to attribute that to trammel.
3. You're still not accounting for the trends. Sure the overall level was higher than pre trammel but that's only because of an obvious bubble that trammel created. Releasing trammel gave a boost to the number of subs and then those subs started to decline until they tried to stop the bleeding with AoS, which ultimately shared the same fate: a temporary boost, leading to an inevitable crash.
What are you reading?
I found 9 data points from 2000 (only ~150k) to the peak in 2001 with ~250k sub. Therei s a clear increase of 100k sub ... 66% from 2000 to the peak.
1. The chart clearly shows less than 250 and the next one is at 225, so it cannot be 25k.
2. I didn't attribute it to trammel, I stated the peak happened after trammel. Thats it.
3. Now you are using conjecture saying it was just a bubble. That bubble that you say, lasted for more than 2 years, that is a good bubble.
There was a slight decline, then held steady for a year , followed by a slight decline, than increase of more than both slight declines put together.
I don't know what would have happened had trammel not released that is conjecture. All we can state is that after trammel there was a significant increase in the population, then held steady for approximately 2 years, then started to decline.
This two points are very clear, and well supported by the graph.
It's slightly under 250 and then 2 data points later it's basically at, maybe slightly below 225.... that equals 25, not 15. Even if it's not exactly 25, it's closer to 25 than 15.
No you outlined what happened on the graph and then said "So yeah trammel was a success" and one of the things you mentioned was the 40k increase. Why mention the 40k increase at all, if it's not related to trammel? That's what we're talking about, what effect trammel had on the game.
What do you mean lasted for more than 2 years? The decline started about a year after Trammel was implemented. The only time it reversed its decline was when AOS was introduced.
See? You're using that increase as an argument for what exactly? For AOS? Why are you counting that increase as anything? The discussion is about trammel.
Yeah this is just not true at all and I hope your chosen profession doesn't involve data analysis. Dropping 50k subs with no increases isn't "holding steady." The decline starts around Q2 2001, the only time that decline is reversed is when AOS is implemented, which boosts the subs again until it RESUMES its decline, this time indefinitely.
Slightly under 250 on a graph that size is close to 240, then at 225 is not 25, it is less than 25. Likely closer to 15.
Trammel was a success. The population grew to 1.6 times the size pre-trammel and held relatively stable positions for 2 years. That is a success.
The peak happened 3 years after trammel, as we’ve stated all along. I didn’t state why only what was, you said it peaked in 2001, that was wrong. It didn’t, it peaked in 2003.
The trammel effect was to grow the population to1.6 times the size pre-trammel.
Would they have had the same peak in 2003 without it? I don’t know, I think likely not though, why? because once again, trammel increased the popluation to 1.6 times the size
Trammel released in 2003 it rose in 2001, dipped a bit in 2001, stayed steady for a year, dipped a bit in 2002, then peaked in 2003. That is 3 years. After the initial height in 2001, then to 2003 it is 2 years. So it is 3 years from trammel release to peak, and 2 years from initial trammel heights to peak.
I’m using this statement to show the peak happened in 2003, not in 2001 as you stated.
Increasing 100k subs in one year, then over 2 years (dropping 15ksubs in 6 months, holding steady for a year, dropping another 15k subs, then increasing 40 k subs), is holding steady.
But the dot you're comparing it to is also under 225.
NO. Starting to decline a year after it was implemented is not "holding there" it's just dying slowly, that's all. That's not sustaining anything. It was trending downwards very soon after trammel. And like you said, you can't know what would happen if they implemented something other than trammel. But if you think a slight bump and then a downward trend is a "success" then I'm not sure what to tell you.
You keep saying that as if I'm denying when the peak was. I may have said that trammel peaked in 2001, as in the initial bump in subscribers, and that's true. The peak you're talking about clearly was a result of AOS, not trammel, and was also temporary just like trammel's success was temporary.
And then die.
Yeah, that's called a bubble. An artificial boost, followed by a crash. Post-trammel didn't crash as fast something like the housing market or the stock market post-911, but you simply can't deny the downward trend following trammel's "success."
That's EXACTLY what I'd expect to see from implementing a change like that btw. That's what you see from basically all of the themeparks, as well. HUGE success, followed by declines.
The most consistent line on that chart seems to be EVE, a game has for the most part stuck to its sandbox principles. So I think it's likely that UO would've continued its slow but steady increase in population if it dealt with whatever issues it ran into with its usual sandbox, simulation-based way of dealing with things, not trammel.
I assume you mean trammel was released in 2000. Also, again you're using the increase in 2003 as some kind of argument for trammel, but it was almost certainly because of AOS... not because of trammel.
STOP USING THE 40K INCREASE IN YOUR ARGUMENT. It's outright wrong and dishonest. That's called data mining. You can't say the population was "holding steady" and then use an increase from something else as evidence of it "holding steady." Are you serious right now?
No that dot is pretty much smack on the 225 mark.
YES. There was a slight decline A YEAR after trammel was implemented. In that year it grew 100,000 subs. It then dropped by 15, held steady for a year, dropped by 15 and grew by 40. That is holding steady.
It was not trending downward soon after trammel, it took a year to trend downward.
If you don’t think growing by 100k, dropping 15, steady for a year, dropping 15, increasing 40 is not a success than I’m not sure what to tell you.
You keep saying that as if I'm denying when the peak was. I may have said that trammel peaked in 2001, as in the initial bump in subscribers, and that's true. The peak you're talking about clearly was a result of AOS, not trammel, and was also temporary just like trammel's success was temporary.
Jean luc just said, “UO peaked its population 3+ years after Trammel was introduced,” You said he was wrong and it just got a small bump. The peak in 2003 might have been because of aos however without that 1.6x pre-trammel population boost it likely would not have been the peak at all.
Trammel’s increased population lasted 3 years.
And then die. – as all games eventually do
Yeah, that's called a bubble. An artificial boost, followed by a crash. Post-trammel didn't crash as fast something like the housing market or the stock market post-911, but you simply can't deny the downward trend following trammel's "success."
How was in an artificial boost? The game had significant increased populations for years. That’s not a bubble. There was not artificial boost, just a boost.
That's EXACTLY what I'd expect to see from implementing a change like that btw. That's what you see from basically all of the themeparks, as well. HUGE success, followed by declines.
It makes more sense to get 2 million subscribers initially and fall to 500,000 then have less then 500,000 initially and grow to a max of 500,000.
The most consistent line on that chart seems to be EVE, a game has for the most part stuck to its sandbox principles. So I think it's likely that UO would've continued its slow but steady increase in population if it dealt with whatever issues it ran into with its usual sandbox, simulation-based way of dealing with things, not trammel.
Eve has been a success, no denying that, and totally irrelevant to the discussion about trammel increasing UO’s population significantly and UO’s peak occurring in 2003.
STOP USING THE 40K INCREASE IN YOUR ARGUMENT. It's outright wrong and dishonest. That's called data mining. You can't say the population was "holding steady" and then use an increase from something else as evidence of it "holding steady." Are you serious right now?
The 40k is not wrong, it is shown right there on the graph. You not liking it doesn’t make it wrong. We absolutely can say that the population dropping 15k, holding steady, dropping 15k and increasing 40k is a sign of relative stability. You may not like it, that doesn’t make it wrong. That was UO’s population after Trammel, yes other factors influenced as well, maybe a lot, but that was STILL UO’s population AFTER trammel.
It's actually under it but this isn't going anywhere obviously.
Why for the love of everything that is holy do you keep counting that 40k on your side? Why?? It happened because of AOS, and it happened after years of nothing but declines and stagnation.
Yes, that's soon. Trammel was a new player friendly feature that removed depth from the game. It seems to fit incredibly well that those new players stayed for a year and then quit once they did all of the things they wanted to do... you can argue about the subjectivity of me using the word "soon" or you can try to think about it in the context of this debate. I'm saying trammel gave the game a shot in the arm in new players, but it was temporary.
Again, stop using that 40k in your argument. It doesn't make sense and it's dishonest. And you're not telling the whole story. The trend was downward, the game was dying. There were no increases in the population for almost 2 years, then they implement AOS to boost subs again. Just because the game hadn't died just yet doesn't mean it's a success.
Take out that AOS boost and what does the chart show? The game dying over 6 or so years. And when would the peak have been? 1 year after trammel was implemented. So as I've said the ENTIRE TIME: Trammel gave the game a boost in subscribers, but then the game started its steady decline with only a couple of (actually only ONE) meaningful turning points, and they were temporary. That's not conjecture, that's not my opinion, that's what the chart says. 1 year after trammel was implemented, the game is on a CLEAR DOWNWARD SLOPE, and the only thing that slows down the decline is AOS in 2003, and that boost was short lived as well.
I said he was wrong on a couple of accounts and then I explained how he was wrong. I never said the peak in population wasn't in 2003. I said it's wrong to interpret the data the way he was interpreting it. Just because the peak came 3 years after trammel does NOT mean that trammel was a success. It flat out does not mean that. Not only that, the clear trajectory change, according to the graph YOU posted, was AFTER trammel was implemented. We don't know what exactly happend leading up to trammel, but according to the graph, the game was growing just fine. AFTER trammel was implemented, the trend was grim.
EvE hasn't yet. All mmo's die, but the point I'd make about trammel is that it started a trend in the mmo genre of catering to the whims of newer players at the expense of gameplay depth. In other words, more money NOW, less money LATER. I'm not claiming that a more organic method of deterring griefing like a jail system or bounty system would have increased UO's population as much as trammel did as QUICKLY as trammel did, I'm making the claim that it would have increased slowly but surely, just as EVE has done.
Just a boost.... followed by a crash. What else would you call it? A boost that lasted for 1 year, followed by a decline that lasted for like 6 or 7 years with the exception of when AOS was implemented.
Where are you getting this "max of 500,000"? You don't know what the max would have been. This is just a silly nonsensical example that isn't based in reality or reason.
Look at EVE, slow and steady. In fact the EVE line and the pre-tram UO line look very similar. Again, I'm not claiming that NOT implementing trammel would've lead to a similar increase in subs, what I'm claiming is that a more simulation-based, organic solution to whatever problems they were facing would've lead to more LONG TERM growth. At any rate it's hard to imagine it would be in any worse shape than it is now: basically a failure and a laughing stock.
How is it irrelevant? The discussion is about how successful trammel was. I'm making the claim that trammel ultimately HURT UO. That it was an overall negative compared to them increasing simulation and roleplaying, rather than decreasing it. Increasing the game's depth, rather than watering the game down.
This discussion isn't just about data points on a graph. Those data points are used to either support or hurt certain claims. So if there's another sandbox that has had a similar history in terms of subscribers, I don't see how it's irrelevant to the discussion.
What are you even talking about? I'm not claiming that the 40k increase didn't exist. Are you even reading what I'm writing? I've said a number of times that the 40k increase was at the exact same time AOS was implemented. I'm not saying it didn't exist, I'm saying it has nothing to do with trammel.
So I'll ask again, WHY are you counting that 40k increase in a discussion about trammel? That was obviously due to AOS being released and even that was short lived!
Trammel gave UO a bump in subscribers for a year, then started to decline and never saw another increase in population with the exception of the couple of quarters around AOS being released and a TINY increase in 2006 (looks like a couple of thousand).
The 40k happened AFTER Trammel, which is what the argument was about. UO grew AFTER trammel. Yes it may have been largely in response to aos, but it was still AFTER trammel.
UO peaked AFTER trammel, the game had the most subscribers AFTER trammel. The game was the most successfull AFTER tramel. The game had the longest stability (of any of its' timeframe) AFTER trammel.
Eve will eventually die. And disagree that it is about more money money less money later, it is about more money now, the same amount of money later.
The max of 500,00 was in relation to the general mmo market. Before WoW the games trended between 50 and 500k, starting off with less. After wow the trend was 2 million sales and dropping to 50-500k. The longevity is the same, they are and will be played for years. The stable populations are the same 50-500k, but they start out with much much higher bases.
A boost that lasted for years, and only dropped significnatly after 2003.
Eve's success is irrelevant to UO's success. You can make the claim that Trammel hurt all you want but you have no evidence of any kind. The only evidence available was that it gained 100,000 subscribers after trammel hit. Anything about how the game would have fared if Trammel never existed is entirely unfounded speculation.
I didn't say the 40k had anything to do with Trammel either. I'm just saying it came after trammel was implemented, just like all the other growth did.
You said to stop using it in my argument, that it was wrong. My argument was always that UO peaked after trammel. Thats not wrong. I gave no reasons as to why. Why is just speculation. I'll leave the speculation to you and just deal with the data.
Well then why stop at the 40k increase? If the argument is about what happened after trammel, then let's include the fact that at the end of that graph, the game is at 100k subs and may be even lower now. What you're doing is data mining..
The game died AFTER trammel. So I like how you include whatever positives you can think of, but not the negatives. The game had more declines in population AFTER trammel. And by the way, what do you mean the game had the longest stability? According to that graph, every data point leading up to trammel showed an increase in subs. According to that graph, the ONLY time the game lost subs was after trammel.
Listing "good things" that happened after trammel was implemented shows you just straight up don't understand anything about data analysis.
Except it's not about the same amount of money later. According to the graph, UO is currently BELOW its pre-trammel subs. Not to mention you're assuming that UO without Trammel wouldn't have grown at all. But even assuming that, like I said, it's currently lower than pre-trammel levels. So why do you think it's going to mean more money now and the same amount of money later? Doesn't seem accurate to me.
Why does anybody care about the "general mmo market"? You're still assuming that this game (whatever game you're talking about) would have only ever reached a max of 500k. That's just pure speculation. And the reason you're even making that analogy is to compare it to UO's Trammel... and you DEFINITELY can't make the claim that UO wouldn't have gotten to the 2003 peak without Trammel. So I'm just not sure what purpose this analogy serves or if it's even coherent.
The boost lasted for 1 year, not years. You may be confusing it with the decline that UO has been experiencing, which has indeed lasted years. You can say it only dropped "significantly" after 2003, but yet again you're just totally ignoring the downward trend starting in 2001.
I have no evidence in the sense that we don't live in an alternate reality where trammel wasn't implemented. What I do know is that the game's long term downward spiral happened after trammel was implemented. You can say that trammel merely postponed the inevitable or whatever, but you wouldn't have any evidence of that either. That's why it's a discussion. In discussions people use reason and logic and similar examples, like EVE. It's not irrelevant, and it's not proof.
Well the discussion is about how well UO fared after Trammel. Like I've said before, you're data mining by picking that specific time to stop.
Actually you said Trammel was a success. That's not impartial. And also you can play the neutral card and say that you're just "dealing with the data" but data can be framed and interpreted a number of different ways. For instance, you say that the decrease between 2001 and 2003 was insignificant. I say it shows the beginning of a long term downward trend that was only slowed down with the AOS expansion.
Anybody can look at data points on a graph and say "Gee! that dot is higher than all the other dots!", that's not hard. We didn't need you to come in and tell us which dot was the highest. The peak was never in question. The question is what overall effect did trammel have on UO? And I think it's pretty obvious, given that graph.
Trammel gave the game a boost in subs, but then after about a year it started to decline and didn't stop its downward trend except for another temporary boost from the AOS expansion. Do you disagree with this statement? If so, how? Look at that graph and please tell me how I'm wrong. If you adjust for the AOS boost (take temporary bump out), then CLEARLY the beginning of the long and steady decline starts at that 2001 post-trammel peak.
I don't mean to interrupt your three pages of chart debate, but can I get a word in?
Good points. Right now game makers are shamelessly bottom-feeding by copying WoW. I guess that's they only gig they could sell to investors in this crap economy. When enough games fall short of expectations and lose money, I just hope investors don't pull out of the industry, completely. Like you, I look forward to a time when more of the market (including you and I) is being served.
The elimination of non-consensual PvP has nothing to do with this topic which, in case you forgot, talks about how Fear of Death is all but gone in today's MMOs.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
No, sorry. This thread is now to be used only for splitting hairs and back pedaling
Yeah the market is very much still in flux and still responding to people demanding themepark elements and then rejecting them. Especially consider the lost time of developers hearing that people want X, but not knowing how to implement it or trying to implement it in cheap, lazy ways.
The main thing that sticks out in my mind is TERA. I loved TERA's combat system and was somewhat excited to hear that it was going to have OW PvP. But, as it turns out, the OW PvP basically has no purpose and very little consequence so it just amounts to higher level players going to lower level zones to gank people... just because they can.