Concerning Websites showing Server Population Graphs

[GalacticKegger]

That sums it up. When there is six months to a year of data, it becomes more reliable.

 

The population could tank or it could stay exactly where it is today over the next year. Hell, it could even go up if Bioware fixes some things and releases some interesting content.

That's also because Rift did what WoW did ... promiscuously dropped their fly to modders, which allowed server stats to become available to 3rd parties. That's not the case with TOR because EA isn't allowing 3rd party access to happen. Until they do there isn't a server stat site on the planet that can verify the accuracy of their posted data. Edited February 23, 2012 by GalacticKegger

[Vydor_HC]

Not trying to pick on your post in particular, it just reinforces the point I want to make: "Server-Population" isn't very well defined. What does it mean in reality?

- Subscribers?

- People with toons on that server?

- Hours played?

 

I recently created a toon on "The Shadowlands" and was taken back how populated that server is. When asked why, I was told, the "Red vs Blue" team has their home there. That certainly will skew the number of people with toons on that server, just in case there will be an event.

 

And as I said in an earlier post, the total number of hours played on a single server is what should concern us as a community, looking for a group, raid or guild.

 

-nods-

 

I know what your saying, I've seen the arguments before. And you are exactly right in that you can get precise numbers from the info given. But you can generally see trends, that's what I would watch for.

[Drewser]

That's not the point I am making. What I said was after the data was collected, it meted out that people that were noticing a decline were right all along. The skeptics, who used the same arguments I'm seeing used here, were wrong.

 

I am not proclaiming as fact that the numbers here are right, but what I am saying is, don't be too hasty to dismiss them, as we have a good example to go by.

 

That is the point whether you tried to make it or not. There simply is not enough data to know if the current trend is accurate and only time will tell.

 

Also the big difference between this and Rift, is Rfit released in March IIRC. It did not start with overinflated holiday numbers, making part of the decline due to time availability.

[Drewser]

That's also because Rift did what WoW did ... promiscuously dropped their fly to modders, which allowed server stats to become available to 3rd parties. That's not the case with TOR because EA isn't allowing 3rd party access to happen. Until they do there isn't a server stat site on the planet that can verify the accuracy of their posted data.

 

I didn't know that which throws another variable into this.

[Goretzu]

I think the issue the OP was trying to illustrate was that a site, like torstatus for example, may be using a fixed numerical value for servers listed as light/medium/heavy for all servers, despite their population caps and overall population being different. A server listed as light with a population of 500 is not equivalent to a server listed as light with a population of 750.

 

You can't really develop a trend if you don't know whether population is falling or the population cap is rising.

 

 

 

Yes you can, that's what I'm saying.

 

It doesn't give you exact numbers (it can't), it doesn't give you an exact trend (again it can't), but it can give an overall trend (and give an overall indication to overall population playing) which likely has a correlation to over all players and therefore overall subs (it doesn't really matter what the bands are so long as they are the same - if they are not then yes it's meaningless, but then that is because the bands themselves are then utterly meaningless).

 

Just because it's not exact doesn't mean what it's showing isn't correct or is invalid, it just means it's not exact.

[Vydor_HC]

That is the point whether you tried to make it or not. There simply is not enough data to know if the current trend is accurate and only time will tell.

 

Also the big difference between this and Rift, is Rfit released in March IIRC. It did not start with overinflated holiday numbers, making part of the decline due to time availability.

 

hmm, my point is do not dismiss the data off hand, because that's doing the same thing players in Rift did, the point of having enough data right now is irrelevant.

 

 

EDIT: It went live in Feb. Signup and early sales began before the holidays.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Vydor_HC

[Goretzu]

Ya ... server status thresholds are not fixed by any means, and BW moves them around often. Their displayed values (not intrisic values) represent a relationship between fluctuating status thresholds and player count. Since we do not know the server status values, and we have no way to measure player count, the server population status site's tables & charts & plots & graphs are essentially based on a general equation that might look something like this:

 

[unknown variable ranges (Light ↔ Full threshold settings)] - [an unknown quantity (actual online population)] = floobie dust.

 

The constantly variable server status threshold settings won't even allow for accurate trend monitoring.

 

 

As long as they are fixed against each other and not varying at some silly rate (like daily - and I can't imagine why they would be), it doesn't actually matter what the server status thresholds are, as it still gives a reasonable trend analysis.

 

You have no way to measure it against an exact number (but that doesn't really matter in this context), but every way to measure it against the listed server states.

[Goretzu]

When there is six months to a year of data, it becomes more reliable.

 

 

No it doesn't!!!!!

It just increase the length of the data set, not the accuracy or the reliability of it!

 

 

There is no "average" or repetition in the context you seem to think there is and there never will be when talking about relative player population.

 

You are trying to say measuring someone age is unreliable until they are 20 years old, when it's all the same whether they be 1 year old or 100 years old.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Goretzu

[GalacticKegger]

No it doesn't!!!!!

It just increase the length of the data set, not the accuracy or the reliability of it!

 

 

There is no "average" or repetition in the context you seem to think there is and there never will be when talking about relative player population.

 

You are trying to say measuring someone age is unreliable until they are 20 years old, when it's all the same whether they be 1 year old or 100 years old.

I believe he's more in the context of trying to measure someone's age without a birth certificate being problematic. Edited February 23, 2012 by GalacticKegger

[Trenter]

That's not the point I am making. What I said was after the data was collected, it meted out that people that were noticing a decline were right all along. The skeptics, who used the same arguments I'm seeing used here, were wrong.

 

However, people who are skeptic to those sites here have an official statement that says the population is growing to fall back on. I don't know if it was the same in RIFT, but it's not unreasonable to be skeptic in my opinion.

[GalacticKegger]

As long as they are fixed against each other and not varying at some silly rate (like daily - and I can't imagine why they would be), it doesn't actually matter what the server status thresholds are, as it still gives a reasonable trend analysis.

 

You have no way to measure it against an exact number (but that doesn't really matter in this context), but every way to measure it against the listed server states.

They do vary - a lot and often. How do you think they are trying to load balance the servers until character transfers come online? There is no exact number because Bioware won't provide one to use as a reference. There is no constant with server status and won't be until the population imbalance issue is resolved and everything settles in. Even then it will still only be a top level snapshot.

 

The real underlying question is "why is this data even important?"

Edited February 23, 2012 by GalacticKegger

[terminova]

As long as they are fixed against each other and not varying at some silly rate (like daily - and I can't imagine why they would be), it doesn't actually matter what the server status thresholds are, as it still gives a reasonable trend analysis.

 

You have no way to measure it against an exact number (but that doesn't really matter in this context), but every way to measure it against the listed server states.

 

They only give reasonable trend analysis if you know, for a fact, that server limits haven't been changed. Assuming they haven't only leads to bad interpretations of data.

 

I'm just saying that without knowing that all the variables are static any interpretation of the data isn't going to be much beyond speculation, but you can try if you want.

Edited February 23, 2012 by terminova

[Drewser]

hmm, my point is do not dismiss the data off hand, because that's doing the same thing players in Rift did, the point of having enough data right now is irrelevant.

 

 

EDIT: It went live in Feb. Signup and early sales began before the holidays.

 

Doesn't matter when the sales took place for this conversation. With systems that measure server capacity each hour - the holidays will be inflated, since more people have off and generally play longer compared to other times of the year.

 

I don't get how you say the amount and quality of data is not relevant.

[Drewser]

No it doesn't!!!!!

It just increase the length of the data set, not the accuracy or the reliability of it!

 

 

There is no "average" or repetition in the context you seem to think there is and there never will be when talking about relative player population.

 

You are trying to say measuring someone age is unreliable until they are 20 years old, when it's all the same whether they be 1 year old or 100 years old.

 

Yeah it does. Again, you seem to think the holidays have no impact on this data and getting more data points outside of that time frame will not lead to a clearer picture.

 

Also when determining trends, time is certainly a factor. I am a trader of both currencies and the stock market. Trends on a 1 minutes chart are less significant than trends on a daily chart.

 

Your age comparison is so far out in left field, I am not sure how to respond to it.

[Felizcat]

They do vary - a lot and often. How do you think they are trying to load balance the servers until character transfers come online? There is no exact number because Bioware won't provide one to use as a reference. There is no constant with server status and won't be until the population imbalance issue is resolved and everything settles in. Even then it will still only be a top level snapshot.

 

The question should not be "how accurate is the data?" The real underlying question should be "why is the data even important?"

 

Why should they vary the load indicators once they have settled on something that roughly reflects capacity? I would expect that a new character most of the time gets created on a server where a players friends are or if the server has at least a standard load during peak times (not sure if there are any at full at this point in time). Only the inexperienced and some rare exceptions will create a new character on a server with light load.

[Vydor_HC]

However, people who are skeptic to those sites here have an official statement that says the population is growing to fall back on. I don't know if it was the same in RIFT, but it's not unreasonable to be skeptic in my opinion.

 

Heh, funny you should mention it, but yeah, there actually was statements from the Trion team telling people that the game was overall trending upwards, while at the same time they were closing down servers. The parallels are very close.

[Vydor_HC]

Doesn't matter when the sales took place for this conversation. With systems that measure server capacity each hour - the holidays will be inflated, since more people have off and generally play longer compared to other times of the year.

 

I don't get how you say the amount and quality of data is not relevant.

 

Because my post is not about data....it's about the similarities of the two games, which used the exact same metrics and data collection. I am suggesting that people here are saying the same things...even you, to dismiss the data. In the end they were proven wrong. So, I'm not talking about the data itself, merely that the people here are doing what the people in Rift did.

[Drewser]

Because my post is not about data....it's about the similarities of the two games, which used the exact same metrics and data collection. I am suggesting that people here are saying the same things...even you, to dismiss the data. In the end they were proven wrong. So, I'm not talking about the data itself, merely that the people here are doing what the people in Rift did.

 

So your whole point is is Rift players were wrong, so I should believe this incomplete data?

 

Incomplete data, is incomplete data. The fact that Rift was in a drastic decline has no bearing on what will happen here.

 

This game could be crashing and burning but nothing on those charts shows that yet.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Drewser

[Ansultares]

And you get paid to make analyses this vague?

 

Nowhere do I even see mentioned that anything said by EA/BW should be taken with some amount of skepticism; anyone who wants to give them the benefit of the doubt is willfully fooling themselves. EA certainly has a proven track-record of being only slightly better than SOE.

 

But, seeing as you're so expert, would you care to explain the nature of the Super Bowl Sunday spike? Could you correlate the server status trends with actual announcements of server capacity increases, etc?

 

You know, like actually say something other than "give BW the benefit of the doubt?" I mean, six years, didn't even put in /roll..... they get no benefit from me. Plus, EA.

[Arkerus]

So your whole point is is Rift players were wrong, so I should believe this incomplete data?

 

Incomplete data, is incomplete data. The fact that Rift was in a drastic decline has no bearing on what will happen here.

 

This game could be crashing and burning but nothing on those charts shows that yet.

 

If they raise the population limits and change the server status messages to a different level any population study is bunk. That's why you can't trust anything on those aggregate sites. They are nothing but swag.

 

The only numbers you can believe are the official numbers in the quarterly investment reports.

 

Every time bioware changes the settings on those server readouts it renders these sites bunk. End of conversation.

[Vydor_HC]

So your whole point is is Rift players were wrong, so I should believe this incomplete data?

 

Incomplete data, is incomplete data. The fact that Rift was in a drastic decline has no bearing on what will happen here.

 

This game could be crashing and burning but nothing on those charts shows that yet.

 

-nods-

 

I never said that was an absolute. I said there are similarities and dismissing the data offhand might not be a wise thing to do. I've seen it before, and what is happening here is a carbon copy. The arguments are exactly the same.

 

So, yes the Rift players were wrong and they were making the exact same arguments as the players here are making.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Vydor_HC

[Belogard]

That's so funny. You look at the yearly stats and it goes down like Wall Street in '08. (You can fit that in a tweet!) Game apologists use statistics much like a drunk uses a lamp post - more for propping themselves up than for illumination.

[Drewser]

-nods-

 

I never said that was an absolute. I said there are similarities and dismissing the data offhand might not be a wise thing to do. I've seen it before, and what is happening here is a carbon copy. The arguments are exactly the same.

 

So, yes the Rift players were wrong and they were making the exact same arguments as the players here are making.

 

I am not going to rehash them all but there are enough differences between the Rift launch and this one for me to dismiss the current data as inaccurate/incomplete.

 

I want to see what the trend line looks like from about Jan 24 to March 24 before drawing any conclusions.

[Vydor_HC]

I am not going to rehash them all but there are enough differences between the Rift launch and this one for me to dismiss the current data as inaccurate/incomplete.

 

I want to see what the trend line looks like from about Jan 24 to March 24 before drawing any conclusions.

 

-nods-

 

I know what your saying, as I made the exact same arguments in Rift. And I am not vouching for the data here, so don't draw that conclusion. I don't really know why were are even discussing the validity of the data since that was not my argument at all in the first place.

 

But when I see people going down the same road others have gone down, doing the exact same thing, with data that is very very similar, and data collections methods that are the same....I don't dismiss it out of hand.

[Setanian]

To be fair, Occam's Razor refers to an explanation with the least amount of assumptions, not necessarily the least amount of explanation. The problem with using that here is the fact that the charts in reference are making several assumptions themselves, and the original post was in many ways debunking the validity of those assumptions. I agree that any speculation that server population is rising may not have any factual basis, but the same could be said of charts that are based on variables that have not been clearly defined and can and possibly have changed at undetermined intervals. In this case, while it may be more likely that these charts support a drop in population, shouldn't we really be asking why we're giving any credibility at all to these charts? Charts based on actual numbers would be extremely nice and it seems silly to base any assumptions on something as abstract and assumed as the ones in question.

 

You're totally correct..

 

How-ever..If we dimiss all the charts, and go by the players reporting fewer players and fewer shards, and take the easiest explanation, we end up with less population == less players?